English House Condition Survey 2001

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare that I am president of the National Home Improvement Council.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government when the English House Condition Survey for 2001 is to be published.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the Government are working towards publication in July of the full English housing condition survey results for 2001. The results will be published in hard copy and on the housing website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Key results of the survey have already been used as the basis for monitoring progress towards the delivery of important government policy objectives, principally those for decent homes and the reduction of fuel poverty.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information. However, given that the report was originally scheduled to appear at the end of last year, is not publication in July a little regrettable? In view of the survey's importance, that delay is really unfortunate. Is there any truth in rumours that the report will indicate that at least 5 million of the 20 million homes in England are below standard and would require major repairs to bring them up to standard and that those homes are inhabited by people on low incomes who mainly suffer from fuel poverty? What special action are the Government taking to deal with that problem?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, it is regrettable that there has been delay in publishing the survey. However, this delay is no longer than that in publishing the 1991 and the 1996 surveys. However, as I said, quite a bit of the material has already been released as data which underpins important government objectives.
	The survey results are actually quite encouraging, showing a substantial improvement since the previous survey in the housing stock across both the social and the private sectors. The percentage of non-decent stock—which I shall define in a moment—decreased from 46 per cent in 1996 to 33 per cent in 2001. Such stock has decreased from 52 per cent to 38 per cent in the social housing sector and from 45 per cent to 32 per cent in the private sector. All the details underlying those figures will be published in July. It is an encouraging development. The Government's objective is that all social housing will be brought up to a fit-for-purpose standard by 2010. As noble Lords will know, the Government will be investing £22 billion over the next five or six years to get our housing up to standard.
	I should like, if I may, to say one thing about the definition of housing that is not decent. If, for example, a house does not have insulation in the loft or is missing a window catch, it will be included in the 7 million houses regarded as not decent. The Government are therefore setting themselves a very high standard—much higher than that in any other European country.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, the Minister has mentioned insulation in lofts. What do the Government intend to do about fuel efficiency measures in general for those homes?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I think that we will find that the housing Bill contains provisions to ensure that fuel efficiency is brought up to absolute and certain standards. It also gives local authorities the power to intervene and ensure that houses meet the standards that the Government and everyone else require.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Home Improvement Council. Can the Minister tell us what has been done particularly to older properties in poor repair since the previous housing conditions survey was announced? That survey threw up the fact that we have one of the oldest housing stocks in Europe and that those living in our older housing tend to be poor and elderly. What measures have been taken, and have they had a real impact on this sector?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the Government are fully aware that one of the absolute priorities is to improve the houses of the elderly and the disadvantaged. That is why the housing Bill, which is currently out for consultation, provides for a new fitness standard that covers nine provisions—all of which, when implemented, will mean that, over a period of years, all housing reaches a certain standard. The nine provisions are aimed very specifically at old housing that needs to be brought up to a certain standard and where the tenants tend to be either disadvantaged or elderly.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the places where they can start doing something is the Houses of Parliament? This is one of the worst buildings in the country for heat efficiency. We need more double glazing, more doors closing and all kinds of other such measures. Will he pass on to his colleagues what many of us feel about the efficiency of this place?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, that clearly follows on from my previous answer when I talked about the elderly and the disadvantaged. It would be quite inappropriate for me to comment on matters that concern the running of Parliament. All I ask for is a light behind the Whips' Gate so that we can read while we are sitting there.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister elaborate on his earlier comment that local authorities will have power to intervene, and also on his comment that all houses should be brought up to standard? Will he explain exactly who will pay for that? Will it be the people in the relevant houses, the owners of the houses, the councils or the Government?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the answers to many of those questions can be found in the draft housing Bill published on 31st March. Consultation will run until June 2003. I gather that there will be an onus on those tenants who can afford it to repair their houses; otherwise, local authorities will intervene. The cost of that is included in the £22 billion worth of investment that I mentioned earlier. It is important to note that this is the first time in a generation that any government have made a serious attempt to tackle these problems. We are absolutely convinced that by the year 2010 the commitments we have made will be realised.

Healthy Eating

Lord Clinton-Davis: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have had any discussions with the sugar industries concerning guidelines on healthy eating.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, there is an NHS Plan commitment to work with industry to improve the overall balance of the diet, including salt, fat and sugar in food. The Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency are in discussion with industry on reducing the salt in foods. Work on sugars and fat will follow through 2003-04.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend do everything she can to support the WHO at a time when it is under attack from the sugar and other industries in the United States? What representations have been made by the Government to the WHO and also to the industries concerned?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the WHO has recommended that sugar should form no more than 10 per cent of average energy intake. That is the level mentioned in the UK's own guidelines so we are foursquare with the WHO in that regard. The expert committee will refer back to the WHO. I am sure that we shall support it in every way.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, on a secondary but no less important matter than our own guidelines, will the Government assist the World Health Organisation in precisely the terms mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis; that is, in resisting pressure from US sugar interests to try to bury the kind of recommendation we are discussing? Recently, the US Sugar Association responded to the WHO report by saying that there was,
	"'a preponderance of recent scientific evidence' exonerating sugar as a cause of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, hyperactivity and tooth decay".
	That is clearly nonsense. Will the UK Government make absolutely certain that they support the WHO?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is important to note that the expert report which contained the recommendation referred to the global population. It suggested that individual countries would make their own recommendations. The best thing we can do is to uphold our 10 per cent figure. We believe that that figure indicates a safe level of sugar consumption for our population and that of the rest of the world.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree—it is a fact, so she should agree—that it is absolutely futile for the Government or anyone else to talk about nutrition and what is good or bad for people until the Food Standards Agency and the Government take appropriate steps to require easily assimilable and comparable nutritional labelling on all packed foods? That step is still overdue.

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. How dare I disagree with the noble Baroness? I wish to make two comments. First, the Food Standards Agency has an action plan on labelling. It is considering the whole range of issues concerning labelling, not just its scope and its efficiency. Just as importantly, we are taking a lead in Europe. Obviously, to an extent our food labelling is governed by European directives. We are pressing in Europe for more comprehensive ingredient listing, better country of origin labelling, clear nutrition labelling and tight controls on nutrition and health claims. We are doing our best to take a lead in this area.

Lord Rea: My Lords, can my noble friend say what the Government's position is with regard to the Private Member's Bill being introduced in another place which seeks to regulate advertising of food and sweets directly aimed at children? Is she aware that a recent opinion poll showed that some 80 per cent of the population would favour such legislation?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am sure that the Government will look carefully at the Private Member's Bill. Importantly, the Food Standards Agency is taking a lead in funding a systematic review of research into advertising and the promotion of food with regard to children. That will be published in July 2003. We are painfully short of information and research on the link between food promotion and eating behaviour. I hope that the review will help to clarify the position.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, what is the opinion of the Government in relation to the current campaign by Cadbury's to sell more chocolate to children thereby encouraging the purchase of IT equipment for schools?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness knows that the Get Active! programme is not a government initiative. We are not encouraging children to eat more confectionery. The project was negotiated between Cadbury's and the Youth Sport Trust, an independent charity. Ultimately, schools themselves decide whether to take part in that project. The most important action we can take is to pursue our schools' fruit scheme, which will reach a million four to six year-olds this summer, and the Food and Health Action Plan, which next year will bring together all our policies. I refer also to the considerable amount of money we are putting into school sport in a number of different ways.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, have the Government had discussions with the manufacturers of confectionery? Can the Minister confirm that chocolate and the products of the cocoa bean represent healthy eating if consumed in moderation?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as something of a "chocoholic" myself, that is quite good news. We must take care when trying tackle the problem of obesity that our general message is one of moderation, balance in the diet and good sense. I am sure that the industry has been involved in the FSA's discussions on the reduction of sugar in foods in general. We will play a part in getting them into partnership as much as possible.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend's comments on labelling will be most welcome, but will she use her influence to ensure that it is not good enough merely to have labelling but that such labelling should be in a type that is large enough to be readable in a supermarket? All too often, one cannot see what it says in the dim light of a supermarket and one does not know what the labelling means.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is not merely in the dim light of a supermarket; often one cannot see it in the full light of day. I agree that the label should be of a size and a clarity that really makes it helpful to people. I am sure that that is one of the issues that the FSA review will be examining.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are over time now; we are all waiting for my Cabinet colleague to reply.

Iraq: Food and Medical Supplies

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, perhaps I may, on behalf of these Benches, congratulate the noble Baroness on her appointment as Secretary of State for International Development. I am sure that I speak for the whole House—clearly I do—in wishing her well in that important position. I hope that her appointment will not stop the noble Baroness performing her important role in this House.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to help secure food and medical supplies stored in Iraq.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, for his very kind wishes. I am absolutely delighted, as the House can imagine. This House has a strong interest in international development issues which crosses parties and which I hope will continue.
	As part of their obligations under the Geneva Convention and Hague regulations, coalition forces are working to protect hospitals and storage facilities containing food and medical supplies. There is not currently a widespread shortage of food. The World Health Organisation reports that the overall stocks of medical supplies are sufficient. There are a few specific shortages of specialist drugs that it is working to address. DfID has committed £115 million for support work by humanitarian agencies in the current crisis.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that response. The WHO has predicted a possible cholera outbreak in Basra. What contingency plans have been made to deal with that and to replenish medical supplies in Iraqi hospitals, which are running short as a result of looting and the continued insecurity?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. The WHO has confirmed 16 cases of cholera in Basra in the past 12 days. It is important that noble Lords remember that cholera is endemic in southern Iraq at this time of year. A cholera taskforce has been established, bringing together the WHO, UNICEF, the Department of Health and NGOs. There are reported to be sufficient stocks of relevant medical supplies, but there are some difficulties in distribution as many vehicles have been stolen. We are looking at that as a matter of urgency. In addition, DfID has cholera kits sufficient to treat 11,000 people on standby in Kuwait.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am sure that many Members of the House would like to second the congratulations of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and I do so myself. I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that the problem goes far deeper than has been outlined and that although Iraq expects a bumper wheat harvest, only two thirds of it is certain because of high petrol prices and farmers' inability to use machinery. Does not the root of the problem lie far deeper? Is there not a need for Iraq to be helped to be Iraq and for that poor country to move towards some sense of stability in the long term?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is absolutely right. While the humanitarian crisis is not on the scale that was predicted—for example, in terms of the movements of internally displaced people—and there are food and medical supplies available, the security situation remains a matter of grave concern. The right reverend Prelate also referred to the high prices of petrol. That is why the reconstruction effort is so important and why the UN resolution that is under discussion in New York is so important. They will pave the way for the establishment of the interim Iraqi authority that will take over the administration.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I congratulate the Secretary of State on her new position. Her appointment is extremely welcome, as we have heard. On all sides of this House, and across the development community, her hard work and commitment are justly recognised.
	Does the noble Baroness agree that our key aim in Iraq must be to restore security and to assist, as the right reverend Prelate indicated, in the establishment of a legitimate Iraqi government who can oversee all areas, including the security of medical supplies and food? In light of Clare Short's resignation, does she feel that the United Nations is being offered an appropriate role in trying to move forward the establishment of that legitimate Iraqi government?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, the right reverend Prelate and others for their very kind wishes. Our priority must of course be the restoration of security. That is why the coalition forces are working so hard on that. We have managed to achieve that to a degree in the south. There is still fighting in Baghdad and that is why the situation there is so difficult. With respect to the importance of establishing a legitimate Iraqi government, the noble Baroness was absolutely right. The role of the UN is critical to that.
	There are three key issues with which the new resolution deals. The first is the role of a special UN co-ordinator. The operative paragraph in the draft resolution is paragraph 8. It sets out a substantial mandate for a special co-ordinator to play a full part in all aspects of post-Iraq activity, from humanitarian efforts through to economic reconstruction, human rights, rebuilding police capacity, promoting legal and judicial reform and the political process. I hope, in the light of my comments about the scale of the role envisaged for the UN's special co-ordinator, that the noble Baroness will appreciate that we continue to see a vital role for the UN in that process.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, as one who has put to the Minister a number of critical and, I hope, testing questions on foreign policy aspects of Iraq and the Middle East over the past few years, I join in the congratulations and thank her for the courteous, helpful and well informed way in which she has always dealt with those questions.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright. I am sure that those testing questions will continue.

Iraq: Water Supply

Baroness Rawlings: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are taking to improve the water supply to rural areas of Iraq.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, ongoing security concerns mean that access to rural areas is still limited. Few assessments have yet been made of the needs of rural communities. Supplies of water in rural areas come from a variety of sources, including piped water, wells and rivers. We have had no reports that rural areas suffered substantial disruption to supply as a result of the conflict. Improving supplies of water in the longer term will need to be considered as part of the broader reconstruction of Iraq once there is a UN mandate.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Secretary of State for her reply. Before I ask my supplementary question, I would like to add my congratulations to those of my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever and of all the others to the noble Baroness on her new position as Secretary of State for International Development. It is a true reward for her achievements and we all wish her well for the challenges that lie ahead. We also appreciate the Government recognising the importance of your Lordships' House with another Cabinet post.
	According to CARE International, people in rural areas depend on a central water infrastructure to get their supplies, which they are not currently getting. At the moment, that infrastructure is working only precariously; that is due to the lack of investment and repairs. Even before the war, the infrastructure was in very bad shape and available in only some cities. Rural areas have pretty much had the last claim on whatever water there is. What plans are there to alter the centralised infrastructure of Iraq's water and sanitation systems so that rural areas have an equal claim rather than the last claim to water? That will avoid exacerbating the problems being experienced.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. We have worked closely together on development issues and I hope that we will continue to do so.
	I said in my original Answer that it has been quite difficult to assess the problem with respect to water supplies in rural areas. Some information is coming to us from NGOs but we must examine the issue in some detail. Maintaining clean water has been a priority for us. The ICRC and others, including the UK military, have done excellent work to repair water stations and supply water by alternative means in the interim. In many parts of the country, the situation has improved. However, I agree with the noble Baroness that we must ensure that rural areas are treated as well as urban areas and are considered to be part of our overall reconstruction effort.

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, as the World Health Organisation special envoy for the region, I offer warm congratulations to the new Secretary of State for International Development. I am sure that everyone in the World Health Organisation will warmly welcome her appointment. She is absolutely right about the underlying weaknesses of the water system. Is she aware that in the early 1980s Saddam Hussein cut the water infrastructure budget from 15 per cent of the agriculture budget to 5 per cent and never recovered it, in order to buy more weapons? After the Basra uprising he retailored the water supply so that those who had opposed him most fiercely got no water in the consequential rebuilding of the water supply. Will she work closely with her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and empower the Army and, in view of their arrival, the Royal Engineers in particular, to do as much work on this as possible in rural and city areas? The fact that security is so very difficult means that we badly need the Army.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. She rightly said that Saddam Hussein did not, for example, repair water systems in Basra; the current difficulty with water supplies is not new. However, the situation in Baghdad was different. The noble Baroness will be aware that our military has, under the Hague and Geneva Conventions, specific responsibility with respect to immediate humanitarian assistance. That assistance will continue, pending putting in place the interim Iraqi authority.

Lord Rea: My Lords, I am delighted by my noble friend's appointment. This Question and the previous Question concern widely the health of the people of Iraq. Is the food distribution programme, which was previously run quite efficiently by the Iraqi government under the Oil for Food programme, still up and running?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I confirm that much of the food distribution programme under the Oil for Food programme is still in place and that individuals have been turning up for work. That is why the humanitarian crisis with respect to the distribution of food has not been as problematic as we had feared. That distribution process is pretty much still in place.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, has the noble Baroness seen the recent reports about the widespread damage to the desalination plants in southern Iraq, including the looting of parts of those plants? Those parts had no purpose outside those plants; they were simply being taken. Does that not call for what one might call the secondary forces of law and order? I refer to military police working with civilian police to ensure that such random looting stops as soon as possible.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I was not aware of the specific example of desalination plants although I entirely agree with the noble Lord that in terms of the overall security situation, we need the military and others. He will be pleased to know that in Basra we have some 600 police now operating. We want that to be repeated across the country.

Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I join in the congratulations offered to my noble friend. Will the Government seek the assistance of RedR, the Register of Engineers for Disaster Relief? It consists largely of consulting engineers and their employees and has considerable experience in dealing with water problems in disaster areas.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for providing information about the Register of Engineers for Disaster Relief. The department is already in touch with it. We have used its advice in previous humanitarian crises.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Symons will repeat a Statement on Iraq.

Business of the House: Standing Orders 41 and 47

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	If noble Lords agree, the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Bill will come from the Commons tonight—probably after we have gone home, thanks to all the reforms that were recently introduced. No, it does not say that in my briefing. First Reading and Second Reading will take place tomorrow as first business. The Public Bill Office will be open to receive any amendments to that Bill from 10 a.m. tomorrow until either 5 p.m. or 30 minutes after the end of the Second Reading debate, whichever is the later.
	Moved, That, if the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Bill is received from the Commons, Standing Order 47 (No two stages to be taken on one day) be dispensed with in respect of the Bill on Tuesday 13th and Wednesday 14th May; and that Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 14th May to allow the Bill to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Williams of Crosby.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Railways and Transport Safety Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 15,
	Schedule 1,
	Clause 16,
	Schedules 2 and 3,
	Clauses 17 and 18,
	Schedule 4,
	Clauses 19 to 72,
	Schedule 5,
	Clauses 73 to 102,
	Schedule 6, Clauses 103 to 115,
	Schedule 7,
	Clauses 116 to 119.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Courts Bill [HL]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
	Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Clause 67 [Process for making Criminal Procedure Rules]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 118:
	Page 31, line 17, leave out "disallow or alter" and insert "or disallow"

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I shall speak slowly for the first minute or two to allow noble Lords to make their exit before we get on to this fascinating amendment. I move the amendment only in order to enable myself to speak to it because I am satisfied with the government amendments grouped with it and which render the amendments standing in our names unnecessary.
	This group of amendments deals with an issue that caused us some concern at earlier stages of the Bill. For a long time, there has been a Civil Procedure Rules Committee, which drafts the rules of court that the Lord Chancellor may approve or disapprove. The Lord Chancellor cannot at present make rules or alter draft rules submitted by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. If the Lord Chancellor does not like the draft, he can send it back to the committee for further consideration but he cannot substitute his own version.
	I should add that in the past the Lord Chancellor had the power to alter rules that were submitted to him for approval in the case of the county court rules, but there is no longer a separate body of county court rules; that power has not existed for some years.
	In addition to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, which has existed for many years, the Bill provides for a new criminal procedure rule committee and a new family procedure rule committee. That is undoubtedly a sensible step which we wholly endorse, but in all three of those committees the Lord Chancellor is now given power to alter draft rules put to him by the procedure committee. He is required to consult the committee before altering those rules, but the committee has no veto.
	It is of course a limited power. The Lord Chancellor can alter only drafts put by the committee; he cannot, under the guise of claiming to do so, rewrite the rule book. The power is therefore to some extent constrained. But we are concerned that in respect of the High Court and the Crown Court, the Lord Chancellor is for the first time being given power to override the committee. We therefore tabled amendments in Committee to remove the Lord Chancellor's power to alter draft rules submitted to him for approval by the three procedure committees.
	The Government have come forward with a compromise solution. It is that where the Lord Chancellor exercises the power to alter rules, as opposed merely to approving rules submitted by the committees, those new rules will require the use of the affirmative resolution procedure for approval by each House of Parliament. That compromise was originally floated by me in Committee. So, not surprisingly, I welcome it and will be happy to support it.
	The amendment has come forward at a late stage and the Lord Chancellor's Department sent me a suitably apologetic letter. References to the department being extremely sorry were in bold and underlined. All I can say is, "Better late than never". We are satisfied with the Government's compromise, so I shall not press the amendments in my name. However, for the purposes of debate, I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should point out that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 120A or 121A.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I do not believe that the Chairman of Committees will face that dilemma because I join the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in welcoming the government amendment. I never regret the lateness of amendments if they are in the right direction, which these clearly are. I also recognise that the Bill team will have been sorely pressed on a number of fronts. Indeed, there has been a tremendous amount of activity on the Bill, probably far more than originally envisaged, and I greatly welcome the fact that the Minister has brought these amendments forward in good time for the debate. Although we received them only last week, we have had more than sufficient time to scrutinise them.
	Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the two of us were the architects of this compromise through a series of nods and winks. We eventually reached the solution which is now brought forward by the Government and I welcome that. I shared the noble Lord's disquiet about the Lord Chancellor having the power to alter rules and that disquiet remains over these three committees. However, the safeguards now built in come a considerable way to allay that disquiet and therefore it will not be necessary for me to move Amendments Nos. 121, 128 and 133. They are matched by government amendments which have the same or similar effect. I thank the Government once again.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I, too, thank the Government for listening. All too often we complain that governments of all kinds are utterly deaf. This Government have not been. It does not matter that the amendments have been tabled late; the important point is that they have been tabled. I thank my noble friend for the path that she and those advising her have taken.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those kind remarks and the helpful comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Hunt of Wirral. I am pleased to say that in Committee on 11th February the Government listened carefully to the debate on the Lord Chancellor's power to alter rules and these government amendments are in response to your Lordships' concerns. I said on a number of occasions that one of the good things about the debates, especially in Committee, is that on all sides we have sought to listen to one another so that we can fashion measures which are fit for the purpose.
	I am extremely sorry that the Government were not able to lay these amendments earlier in order to give your Lordships more time to consider them. I had hoped—and it appears to be the case—that I would be forgiven as they are in the right direction. I assure your Lordships that we tabled these amendments as soon as we were in a position to do so. They have the effect of requiring any rules made by the criminal, family or civil procedure rule committees and subsequently altered by the Lord Chancellor to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Those rules which are allowed by the Lord Chancellor will follow the negative resolution procedure.
	As we have comity on this issue, I do not seek to trouble the House further.

Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has, with her usual worthiness, apologised on behalf of the Government for the considerable changes being made to the Bill at the Report stage. We make amendments at Report stage, but not on the scale of the number made to this Bill.
	Recently, discussion at Third Reading has dwindled because almost everything has been done at Report stage, often after mature consideration in Committee. But as so much change has been made to the Bill at Report stage, I suggest that at Third Reading there should be a greater latitude of discussion than is now the trend.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the compromise that has been arrived at. As it has been greeted with warmth from all sides of the House, I need say nothing further about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 120A:
	Page 31, line 24, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (7),"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 121A:
	Page 31, line 25, at end insert—
	"(7) A statutory instrument containing rules altered by the Lord Chancellor is of no effect unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the day referred to in subsection (5)(a)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 68 [Power to amend legislation in connection with the rules]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 122:
	Page 31, line 28, leave out from first "amend" to "to" in line 29 and insert ", repeal or revoke any enactment"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 70 [Family Procedure Rules]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 123:
	Page 32, line 17, leave out "means family proceedings as defined by" and insert ", in relation to a court, means proceedings in that court which are family proceedings as defined by either".

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this amendment is purely technical and seeks to put beyond doubt the meaning of "family proceedings" in Clause 70. By virtue of Clause 70(1), family procedure rules may be made in relation to family proceedings in the High Court, county courts and magistrates' courts. Clause 70(3) currently defines "family proceedings" as defined by:
	"(a) section 65 of the 1980 Act",
	that is the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
	"or
	(b) section 32 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984".
	Section 65 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 defines "family proceedings" in relation to magistrates' courts and Section 32 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 provides a definition in relation to county courts and the High Court. Unfortunately, these definitions are not identical. Some proceedings defined as "family proceedings" in the 1984 Act are not defined as such in the 1980 Act in magistrates' courts.
	Clause 70(3) intends to clarify that family procedure rules can be made about proceedings in court which are defined in either of the two sections. So, for example, family procedure rules could be made about proceedings in the magistrates' courts which although not defined as "family proceedings" in the 1980 Act are so defined in the 1984 Act.
	The amendment clarifies Clause 70(3) and removes any potential ambiguity in the current drafting. I hope that that is clear to all noble Lords. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I understand why the Minister has tabled the amendment; that is, in order to overcome an ambiguity. But I never cease to be surprised that we do not just overcome the ambiguity by setting out a clear definition of what "family proceedings" means. He has covered the ambiguity but really by filling in the cracks rather than setting out a new definition, which I would have preferred. However, on that basis I am very happy with the explanation given by the Minister.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 71 [Further Provision about scope of Family Procedure Rules]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 124
	Page 33, line 11, at end insert—
	"( ) Family Procedure Rules may, instead of providing for any matter, refer to provision made or to be made about that matter by directions."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this amendment will ensure that the regime for rules of court and practice directions in the family justice system will be as close as possible to that in the civil justice system. I believe I should offer a moment of frankness here and freely admit that this government amendment has been tabled at this stage because it was overlooked when the Bill was drafted.
	When developing the family provisions in the Bill some trouble was taken to ensure that where appropriate the model of the civil justice system was followed as closely as possible. A similar provision to this amendment is included in the Civil Procedure Act, which allows civil procedure rules to delegate matters to be dealt with by practice directions. In order to ensure parity of approach with the civil jurisdiction and to ensure that there is both flexibility and adaptability built into the family justice system, it is necessary to introduce this provision.
	It may help if I give a practical example of when it may be necessary to use this power. Part 52 of the civil procedure rules contains general rules about appeals in the civil jurisdiction. As I am sure many noble Lords will appreciate, there are many different types of appeal that can reach the courts, including not only appeals from lower courts but also appeals from tribunals and other bodies. Some of those appeals are very specialised and prior to the introduction of the civil procedure rules particular provisions had to be contained within individual rules. That is no longer the case and those matters are now dealt with in the practice direction supplementing Part 52.
	The family procedure rule committee will have to be convinced that the matter is suitable for delegating to practice directions before making the necessary rule amendments to bring it into effect. We have tabled the amendment in order to permit the same degree of flexibility in the family justice system as exists within the civil justice system as a whole. I believe that it is a sensible, modernising and updating addition to the way in which the system works. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I raise just one short point, simply because I am aware that there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding about what is intended by the amendment. The point is that some people have read this as suggesting that the reference to directions means directions made by the Lord Chancellor. As I understand it, that is not the case, and this means practice directions in the ordinary sense of the word; that is, a direction given by an appropriate judicial authority. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that that is the correct understanding of the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for raising that issue. As I understand it, the amendment has the effect of allowing family procedure rules to delegate matters which could be dealt with by rules to the President of the Family Division to be dealt with by practice direction. I hope that clarifies the point raised by the noble Lord. I am sure that it does.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 74 [Process for making Family Procedure Rules]:
	[Amendments Nos. 125 to 127 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 127A:
	Page 34, line 40, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (7),"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 128 not moved].

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 128A:
	Page 34, line 41, at end insert—
	"(7) A statutory instrument containing rules altered by the Lord Chancellor is of no effect unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the day referred to in subsection (5)(a)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 75 [Power to amend legislation in connection with the rules]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 129:
	Page 35, line 2, leave out from first "amend" to "to" in line 3 and insert ", repeal or revoke any enactment"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 80 [Process for making Civil Procedure Rules]:
	[Amendments Nos. 130 to 132 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 132A:
	Page 37, line 6, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (7),"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 133A:
	Page 37, line 7, at end insert—
	"(7) A statutory instrument containing rules altered by the Lord Chancellor is of no effect unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the day referred to in subsection (5)(a).""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 81 [Alteration of place fixed for Crown Court trial]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 134:
	Page 37, line 14, at end insert "; and accordingly section 76(4) of the 1981 Act ceases to have effect."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 130 and 290 are technical amendments to ensure that Clause 81 is fully effective in removing an unnecessary and inconvenient procedure from the Crown Court. Until now, Section 76 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 has meant that if the defence or prosecution wish to apply to the Crown Court for a trial to take place at a different location of the Crown Court, the application has to be made in open court before a High Court judge. That applies even if there is not an objection.
	Clause 81 as amended by the Government will make it clear that it is for the court to decide on the appropriate procedure to be applied in each case of an application to change the venue. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I do, indeed, welcome the amendment. It is a matter which I had the opportunity to raise in Committee in order to seek clarification as to whether an application under this section of the 1981 Act for a variation of the place fixed for Crown Court trial is no longer required to be heard in open court by a judge of the High Court. I recall the Minister stating that Clause 81 amends some of the provisions of Section 76 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 which deals with alterations to the place of trial in the Crown Court.
	The Minister stated that it had been his intention to amend Section 76(3) in the manner currently set out and to repeal subsection(4) which contains the requirement for a hearing in open court. I welcome the amendment and am grateful to the Government for tabling it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 82 [Appeals to Court of Appeal: procedural directions]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 135:
	Page 37, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) In section 31A of the 1968 Act (powers of Court of Appeal under Part 1 of that Act exercisable by registrar), in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) insert—
	"(d) to make orders under section 23(1)(a).",.
	and, at the end of paragraph (b), omit "and"."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 135, 136, 137, 193, 236, 270, 139, 140, 141, 142 and 271 have two aims: first, they to seek to enhance the role of the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, and, secondly, to assist in producing more streamlined and effective organisation and procedures in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
	Under Section 31A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 the Registrar of Criminal Appeals undertakes several judicial functions; for example, the variation of bail conditions, the issue of witness orders, grants or refusals of time extensions for appeal or leave to appeal and grant of representation for criminal proceedings in the Court of Appeal or House of Lords.
	The extension of the powers of the registrar, coupled with the proposed extension of the powers of the single judge—as detailed in Clause 82—would produce a single route by which an application for a procedural direction can be made to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). I put the matter simply: an application for a procedural direction would be made to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The registrar would then assess each application and assign it to the appropriate level—for example, either to himself, a single judge or to the full court.
	Those applications with which the registrar is able to deal will be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Lord Chief Justice. Of course, if either the applicant or the prosecution are unhappy with the registrar's directions—or refusal to make a direction—the clause provides them with the ability to renew the application, if they so wish, to a single judge, who may either set aside, vary or confirm any of the procedural directions given by the registrar. In addition, should the applicant or prosecution so wish, they may seek a further review by the full court.
	Equivalent provisions have been made for the Courts-Martial Appeal Court. It shares much of the procedure and administration of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The same individual is the registrar for both courts. An equivalent amendment for the Courts-Martial Appeal Court will enable it to benefit from the efficiencies of this new procedure.
	This change should allow maximum case management flexibility and make the most efficient use of judicial time and resources. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I understand that Amendment No. 138 is in this group. It removes what we regard as the unfortunate distinction between the time for appeal that was allowed—

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my list shows Amendment No. 138 to be in the next group. I think that it has been listed in two groups, which is rather confusing. At the moment, it is in the next group.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in that case I shall not say anything further. My copy of the groupings indicates that it is only in this group.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 136 and 137:
	Page 37, line 19, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	"(2) After section 31A of the 1968 Act insert—
	"31B PROCEDURAL DIRECTIONS: POWERS OF SINGLE JUDGE AND REGISTRAR
	(1) The power of the Court of Appeal to determine an application for procedural directions may be exercised by—
	(a) a single judge, or
	(b) the registrar.
	(2) "Procedural directions" means directions for the efficient and effective preparation of—
	(a) an application for leave to appeal, or
	(b) an appeal,
	to which this section applies.
	(3) A single judge may give such procedural directions as he thinks fit—
	(a) when acting under subsection (1);
	(b) on a reference from the registrar;
	(c) of his own motion, when he is exercising, or considering whether to exercise, any power of his in relation to the application or appeal.
	(4) The registrar may give such procedural directions as he thinks fit—
	(a) when acting under subsection (1);
	(b) of his own motion.
	(5) This section applies to an appeal, and an application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal, under—
	(a) this Part,
	(b) section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987, or
	(c) section 35 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
	31C APPEALS AGAINST PROCEDURAL DIRECTIONS
	(1) Subsection (2) applies if a single judge gives, or refuses to give, procedural directions.
	(2) The Court of Appeal may, on an application to it under subsection (5)—
	(a) confirm, set aside or vary any procedural directions given by the single judge, and
	(b) give such procedural directions as it thinks fit.
	(3) Subsection (4) applies if the registrar gives, or refuses to give, procedural directions.
	(4) A single judge may, on an application to him under subsection (5)—
	(a) confirm, set aside or vary any procedural directions given by the registrar, and
	(b) give such procedural directions as he thinks fit.
	(5) An application under this subsection may be made by—
	(a) an appellant;
	(b) a respondent, if the directions—
	(i) relate to an application for leave to appeal and appear to need the respondent's assistance to give effect to them,
	(ii) relate to an application for leave to appeal which is to be determined by the Court of Appeal, or
	(iii) relate to an appeal.
	(6) In this section—
	"appellant" includes a person who has given notice of application for leave to appeal under any of the provisions mentioned in section 31B(5);
	"respondent" includes a person who will be a respondent if leave to appeal is granted.""
	Page 38, line 25, leave out "Section 31ZA of the 1968 Act applies" and insert "Sections 31B to 31C of the 1968 Act apply"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 83 [Prosecution appeals from Court of Appeal]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 138:
	Leave out Clause 83 and insert the following new Clause—
	"EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CRIMINAL APPEALS TO HOUSE OF LORDS
	(1) Amend section 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (c. 65) (applications for leave to appeal to House of Lords) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) for "fourteen" (in both places) substitute "28", and
	(b) for "date of the decision of that court" substitute "relevant date".
	(3) After subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) In subsection (1), "the relevant date" means—
	(a) the date of the decision of the court below, or
	(b) if later, the date on which that court gives reasons for its decision."
	(4) Amend section 34 of the 1968 Act (applications for leave to appeal to the House of Lords) as follows.
	(5) In subsection (1)—
	(a) for "fourteen" (in both places) substitute "28", and
	(b) for "date of the decision of the Court" substitute "relevant date".
	(6) After subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) In subsection (1), "the relevant date" means—
	(a) the date of the Court of Appeal's decision, or
	(b) if later, the date on which the Court gives reasons for its decision.""

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 138, 143, 158 and 305 further protect the rights of defendants. They meet the concerns of the Joint Committee on Human Rights as well as those of a number of noble Lords who questioned the compatibility of Clause 83 with the European Convention on Human Rights. I believe the amendments address the issues raised in Committee. Unless noble Lords wish me to amplify the reasons for the new clause, I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for tabling Amendment No. 138. It deals with a point raised originally by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and by an amendment which I moved in Committee. I am entirely happy with the current amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 85 [Appeals to Courts-Martial Appeal Court: procedural directions]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 139 to 142:
	Page 39, line 33, leave out "(2)" and insert "(1)"
	Page 39, line 34, at end insert—
	"and at the end of paragraph (f), omit "and".
	( ) In section 36A of that Act (powers of the Appeal Court under Part 2 of that Act exercisable by registrar), in subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (b) insert "and—
	(c) to make orders under section 28(1)(a).",.
	and at the end of paragraph (a), omit "and"."
	Page 39, line 35, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	"(2) After section 36A of that Act insert—
	"36B PROCEDURAL DIRECTIONS: POWERS OF SINGLE JUDGE AND REGISTRAR
	(1) The power of the Appeal Court to determine an application for procedural directions may be exercised by—
	(a) a judge of the Appeal Court, or
	(b) the registrar.
	(2) "Procedural directions" means directions for the efficient and effective preparation of—
	(a) an application for leave to appeal, or
	(b) an appeal,
	under this Part.
	(3) A judge of the Appeal Court may give such procedural directions as he thinks fit—
	(a) when acting under subsection (1);
	(b) on a reference from the registrar;
	(c) of his own motion, when he is exercising, or considering whether to exercise, any power of his in relation to the application or appeal.
	(4) The registrar may give such procedural directions as he thinks fit—
	(a) when acting under subsection (1);
	(b) of his own motion.
	36C APPEALS AGAINST PROCEDURAL DIRECTIONS
	(1) Subsection (2) applies if a judge of the Appeal Court gives, or refuses to give, procedural directions.
	(2) The Appeal Court may, on an application to it under subsection (5)—
	(a) confirm, set aside or vary any procedural directions given by the judge, and
	(b) give such procedural directions as it thinks fit.
	(3) Subsection (4) applies if the registrar gives, or refuses to give, procedural directions.
	(4) A judge of the Appeal Court may, on an application to him under subsection (5)—
	(a) confirm, set aside or vary any procedural directions given by the registrar, and
	(b) give such procedural directions as he thinks fit.
	(5) An application under this subsection may be made by—
	(a) an appellant;
	(b) the Defence Council, if the directions—
	(i) relate to an application for leave to appeal and appear to need the Defence Council's assistance to give effect to them,
	(ii) relate to an application for leave to appeal which is to be determined by the Appeal Court, or
	(iii) relate to an appeal.""
	Page 40, line 30, leave out "Section 36ZA of that Act applies" and insert "Sections 36B to 36C of that Act apply"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 86 [Defence Council appeals from Courts-Martial Appeal Court]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 143:
	Leave out Clause 86 and insert the following new Clause—
	"EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPEALS FROM COURTS-MARTIAL APPEAL COURT
	(1) Amend section 40 of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968 (c. 20) (applications for leave to appeal to House of Lords) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) for "fourteen" (in both places) substitute "28", and
	(b) for "date of the decision of the Court" substitute "relevant date".
	(3) After subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) In subsection (1), "the relevant date" means—
	(a) the date of the Appeal Court's decision, or
	(b) if later, the date on which the Court gives reasons for its decision.""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 87 [Fees]:

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 144:
	Page 42, line 8, at end insert "and should only seek to recover the recurrent running costs of the courts"

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, Amendment No. 144 gives us an opportunity to look again at Clause 87. As the Minister knows, the clause has caused a high level of concern among those who fear its effect on access to justice. The debate will give the noble Baroness an opportunity to give the Government's view regarding the situation so far in the spirit that we have entered into on Report. I hope she will indicate the views of both herself and her colleague on how best to take forward the system with the amendments that were made in Committee.
	The Minister will recall that I have always been concerned about the shadow of the Treasury hanging over this clause. Indeed, she stoutly defended her position when stating that it was her position and that she certainly was not accepting any brief from the Treasury. I was very relieved at that until I read a speech made a few days ago by Sir Hayden Phillips, Permanent Secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department, on the 13th Denning Memorial Lecture held at International Students' House. All my fears have returned fourfold. I do not think that I am quoting Sir Hayden out of context. During the course of his speech he included the following words
	"I also head a Department that is not mortgaged to the bank, but like all Government Departments, mortgaged to Her Majesty's Treasury".
	Undoubtedly, that speech was made with a degree of humour. However, it reveals the appalling truth, which many of us have thought for some time, that the poor Minister is already in hock.
	On the last occasion we debated the clause, I recall that I gave the Minister the opportunity to say that she or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would hold a meeting with the Civil Justice Council. Clause 87 has greatly exercised the council. It has given detailed consideration to the Government's policy of raising almost the full cost of the civil courts through fees levied on users and has concluded that this policy is not consistent with its aim of ensuring access to justice. The Civil Justice Council is composed of a range of very important people from all walks of life and is chaired by the Master of the Rolls. It concluded:
	"The policy is both wrong in principle and unfair in practice and has resulted in significant under funding of the courts which is in serious danger of undermining the civil justice reforms.
	"The Council calls on the Government to abandon this objective".
	I hope that the Minister will come to the Civil Justice Council and give it a full exposition of how the Government intend to deal with what after all is one of their most important bodies. Although I have not yet heard that a meeting is to take place, I hope that there will be one to debate the issues raised by Clause 87. It is in that context that I speak today.
	I have heard certain stories emanating from the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand. Not long ago, I heard that, unfortunately, the franking machine had broken down and that no one had the funds to mend it. I have spoken to several people in high judicial office who spent several hours not only purchasing stamps but sticking them on envelopes to overcome that problem.
	I do not know whether that was an isolated occurrence, but I am also aware of promises that have been made about implementing the full information technology system in the courts, which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, reminded us on Second Reading, is so necessary to ensure that the civil justice reforms work. I do not know what stage we have reached in implementing that system, but I hope that it will be fully implemented soon.
	So my purpose is to give the noble Baroness the opportunity to respond to those and other concerns and to reassure us about them. In that context, I have much pleasure in moving the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. Historically, provision of the courts has been one of the most important and long-standing responsibilities of the government. Indeed, if one goes back in history, it dates back as far as almost anything other than the provision of Armed Forces to protect the country. It is important that the provision of an effective and accessible system of justice should be regarded as one of the prime duties of any Government. There is a real danger that if provision of court services is to be financed through court fees at a level that effectively means that they are self-financing, we will end up by denying a great many people access to justice.
	Some years ago, I remember the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, advocating in a public lecture that the courts, the judiciary, should have the power to levy a precept on the Government for what was necessary to maintain the legal system in effective working order. Although that has many attractions, that is perhaps going a step too far—even though I understand that that happens in some other jurisdictions. Nevertheless, we must accept the principle that we cannot combine an accessible judicial system with something that is wholly self-financing—even setting aside the burden of legal aid. In those circumstances, the amendment has our full support.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, there is a fine ring to the phrase, "access to justice", and I fully endorse all the sentiments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. When it comes to the administration of justice for every level of society, the Labour government elected after the Second World War was foremost in the introduction of legal aid and advice to make real the notion that the administration of justice should be available for all. I therefore fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart said; I believe that I largely agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral.
	However, perhaps I may use another phrase, which is that the administration of justice by our Royal Courts of Justice—by our senior courts in particular—is the provision of a service. Some litigants who need that service are well able to pay more than they may have in the past by way of fees, to demonstrate that while that service is available—the reputation of our judges is such that many people, including those from abroad, want that service—the taxpayers of this country should not pay all the cost of providing the service.
	A distinction may therefore be made between cases, especially of high-powered commercial cases brought by well-heeled litigants in the business field who choose to come to the courts, perhaps as an alternative to arbitration where, of course, they pay the full costs of the building and of the fees of the arbitrator, as well as of their own lawyers. Insofar as it has been beneficial to UK Ltd, as it were, to attract people to our courts as well as to have their cases determined by UK arbitrators, those cases may have a much closer affinity to arbitration cases than they do to poorer members of society seeking justice against a litigant.
	Such cases are certainly distinct from human rights cases, where people need the court to ensure their important human rights—with which I know that the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Hunt, are very concerned. The Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, have frequently made speeches describing the various alternatives. If the High Court is too much of a Rolls-Royce which cannot sensibly be made available to everyone, the county courts, the small claims system, arbitration, an ombudsman and mediation should at least be available as alternatives in such circumstances.
	So, surely, the Lord Chancellor's Department should endeavour on behalf of the British taxpayer—it involves not just the Treasury but the British taxpayer—to receive a measure of fees back, especially from certain litigants who want to use the service that we provide in our courts. Can we not trust the Lord Chancellor's Department to distinguish between such cases and others in which, if the courts are to be available to all, only the minimum of fees should be payable?

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have much sympathy with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but, if I may interpose, I think that he was referring to ordinary people being denied access to justice. If that interpretation is correct, I wholly concur. It is incumbent on my noble friend the Minister today to state whether, if the amendment is not carried, ordinary people will be denied access to justice. None of our courts should be a vehicle for the Government to make a profit. In many ways, our courts provide a social service, which should continue. I do not think that anything proposed by my noble friend interferes with that right, which is all-important.
	I am troubled by some things that my noble friend Lord Borrie said. What he is arguing is ripe for misinterpretation. But it is a good idea that we should debate the issue outside the House of Lords. We should consider the entire issue, not in the context of the Bill, but as one of great importance. For that reason, although I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said, I do not think that there should be a Division.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I wish to say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that, to the extent that every department is responsible for the allocation of funds given to it by the Treasury, I, together with any other member of any government that has ever existed, live in the shadow of the Treasury. I frankly acknowledge that I have never heard of a department that would not say that, if it were given more money, it could put it to exceptionally good use. I reassure the noble Lord that, if my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were minded to give the Lord Chancellor's Department much more money, we could put it to very good use.
	However, within our current budget, we can make access to justice a reality for the people of this country. We are in communication with the Civil Justice Council (CJC). A meeting is planned for later this month. Ms Vicki Chapman, who chairs the CJC sub-committee on access to justice, will hold a meeting with our officials.
	I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says about these matters. But, with respect, what my noble friends Lord Borrie and Lord Clinton-Davis said is right to the extent that the amendments are not necessary. Amendment No. 144 would make it a statutory requirement that the Lord Chancellor have regard to the need, when prescribing fees, to recover only the recurring running costs of the courts. A statutory provision that excluded judicial salaries and accommodation costs from the current running costs would be an undesirable fetter on the Lord Chancellor's powers in exercising his ministerial responsibility to set appropriate fees. It would be to understate the true cost of the service. It would require a significant proportion—

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, has the noble Baroness not noticed subsection (11), which already provides:
	"The Lord Chancellor may not . . . seek to recover judicial salaries".

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I note that that is what the noble Lord seeks.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords—

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I may have misunderstood the noble Lord. Will he make his point again?

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, Clause 87(11) states clearly, and the House has determined, that the Lord Chancellor may not seek to recover judicial salaries.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: If I remember rightly, the provision is the result of an amendment moved by the noble Lord and successfully carried in this House. The Bill has not finished its passage. That may not be the way in which it reappears in due course.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, the noble Baroness should not use the opportunity of this exchange to respond to the House after it has reached a decision. I acknowledge that the Government were defeated, but does the noble Baroness really wish to respond by saying that the provision will probably be overturned in another place? Surely we are due a little more courtesy than that.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not intend to be discourteous. I am responding to the amendment proposed by noble Lords. I have been asked to argue why it is said that the amendments mooted by the noble Lords should not carry sway in your Lordships' House. I intend to develop the issue. Noble Lords will know that it was in the government formed by noble Lords opposite that, in 1992, the then Lord Chancellor agreed that it was anomalous that judicial salaries should not be included. It was under that administration that the introduction of accruals accounting across government brought in capital charges for property reflecting the true cost of the service. Again, in 1992, under another administration, accommodation costs were included. All the measures that the noble Lord now says are unjust were introduced by his own party's government. We have made those comments and argued those points in relation to the fees during debates in this House on the other amendments urged by Members opposite.
	I would be the last person to seek in any way to dishonour or to be discourteous to this House. But, when asking me to respond, the noble Lord used the words "in the light of" other amendments. I never wish to mislead the House as to the Government's view or position. Let it not be said that we believe that the current situation will necessarily be to the long-term benefit of the citizens of this country.
	I am trying to be fair and open with the noble Lord, as I hope that I have always been, so that he better understands the arguments that I put, and so that he can put them in the proper context. It would be wrong of me not to make plain our position; otherwise, I daresay that the noble Lord might subsequently be surprised. I would hate for him to be so surprised as a result of my failure to indicate how the Government are currently minded to act. That is the context in which I make those comments.
	I have also made plain that, subject to subsidies to protect access to justice, the Government's policy is to recover, through fees, the cost of civil court services, including judicial salaries and accommodation costs. The approach is based on the general principle that it is reasonable to expect parties that can pay to do so. I reiterate the point made by my noble friend Lord Borrie. We are talking about people who have the means to pay, and who should properly pay, to meet the costs of that part of the civil justice system that they are using to resolve their dispute. The policy of recovering most of the costs of the courts through fees ensures the best targeting of what are, after all, scarce public resources that come from the taxpayer's pocket. They are public expenditure decisions for the Government.
	In due course, I will invite the noble Lords to withdraw their amendment. But, as the noble Lord has asked me to answer the issue more fully, it is only right and proper for me to do so. Noble Lords will know that the Government have a very proud record of protecting and promoting access to justice. It is one of the Government's overarching concerns.
	On 19th November 1998, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor outlined to Parliament nine principles—they can be found in Hansard at col. WA175. They include the following: fees should not prevent access to justice, and protection must be provided for litigants of modest means.
	In protecting access to justice last year—2001–02—the taxpayer paid in agreed subsidies some £60 million in fees out of the total cost of civil business of £402 million. There was £40 million for legally aided litigants; £17 million for exemption from fees for those on means-tested benefits and for remission for those not receiving benefit but who suffer financial hardship; and £5.8 million subsidy towards certain family law applications—for example, adoption and domestic violence.
	As long ago as 1997, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor extended the exemption criteria to include income support based on jobseeker's allowance, family credit and disability working allowance. In 1999, that was updated to include recipients of working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit at the same level. It has been further revised to reflect the introduction of the new working and child tax credits and the pension credit from April and October respectively. By the end of this year, over five million people will be eligible for automatic exemption from court fees.
	My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor considers that an approach that closely targets those in need is a more cost-effective way of ensuring access to justice than wholesale subsidy. Not everyone who comes before the courts needs the assistance of subsidised court fees, but it is, as we have demonstrated, right that those in need of assistance should obtain it. The Lord Chancellor's Department programme will cover all issues that may have an impact on fees, including how to reduce the cost of services, how best to utilise the courts estate and the number of claims currently issued in the supreme court. Any fee increases that might arise as a result of the programme will be subject to future consultation.
	We think that the balance is about right. The Government have shown their commitment to ensuring that citizens can have access and enforce their rights or have their obligations determined by an independent tribunal by enshrining in the domestic Human Rights Act 1998 the European Convention on Human Rights. Last year—2001–02—the Government provided funds of £1,717 million in civil and criminal legal aid. The total cost of running the criminal and civil courts was approximately £1.1 billion. In fairness to the taxpayer, there is no reason why court users who can pay should not pay for the cost of the civil court service that they use. Those sums should properly be resorted to.
	The civil courts are not being underfunded. As everywhere, budgets are tight, but they have been set to protect frontline services. Some £95 million of IT investment is planned for the next three years. The number of sitting days has increased annually over the past five years. There is sufficient judicial capacity to support continued reduction in waiting times. Noble Lords will know that two orders passed through the House relating to increases in the number of judges. Ninety-three per cent of administrative work is disposed of within five days. Staff numbers have fallen by 2 per cent since 1999 as a direct result of computerisation. The Court Service is the most successful public sector organisation in terms of the Charter Mark award—it has 86 awards, and 100 are being assessed as we speak.
	Transferring the cost to the taxpayer would not automatically secure more resources but would have to share priorities in the allocation of scarce public resources. There are expenditure decisions for government. I hope that I have demonstrated that we have taken those decisions responsibly, and will continue to take them responsibly, to ensure that there is genuine access to justice for the people of our country.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive response to an amendment that is limited to ensuring that court fees seek to recover only the recurrent running costs of the courts. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out so clearly whether her department is mortgaged to the Treasury. Sir Hayden will be pleased to read afterwards how his words have been placed so clearly in context. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that.
	I agree strongly with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about access to justice. To the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I say that we are dealing with a policy of full cost recovery. The difference between what the noble Lord spoke of and what the Treasury-imposed policy would require is that the court fees—to quote the Civil Justice Council—would fail to recognise,
	"the public functions that civil law and civil litigation perform".
	The council also says:
	"Fees are collected only from litigants, but the civil justice system benefits many who do not become involved in proceedings".
	That is why I am so pleased to hear that the sub-committee, at least, is meeting officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department. We must find a way through the difficulties that we share. To the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I say that I will not respond to his invitation to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to step outside to resolve matters, but I agree with him that the debate must go on outside the House as well.
	In the light of that, I want further time to reflect, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Iraq

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on Iraq being made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"Last Friday, the United Kingdom, the United States and Spain informally circulated a draft resolution about Iraq's future to members of the UN Security Council. I have placed copies in the Library and the Vote Office.
	"Our aim is to put Iraq in the hands of its people through an open and accountable process, in partnership with the emerging leaders of the new Iraq. The draft resolution sets out the United Nations' role in that process. It calls for the United Nations to,
	'play a vital role in providing humanitarian relief, in supporting the reconstruction of Iraq, and in helping in the formation of an Iraqi Interim Authority'.
	"This reflects fully the undertakings given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and President Bush at their Hillsborough meeting on 8th April.
	"I will set out for the House the main points in this draft resolution and, in the course of that, deal with a number of questions which have been raised about it. Before I do so, I should report briefly on the situation in Iraq itself.
	"After almost a quarter of a century of brutal, authoritarian rule in Iraq, creating a free and secure society was always going to take time. Barely a month has passed since the regime fell. Today, the security situation varies in different parts of the country. The UN regards the south as safe enough for UN agencies to operate, albeit with significant precautions. The situation is improving in the north. In other areas, including Baghdad, the situation is unsatisfactory. There are still too many cases of violence and lawlessness. Establishing security within the rule of law is the coalition's first priority.
	"Let me now deal with the humanitarian situation. Supplies under the Oil for Food programme are getting through. The World Food Programme has supplies in the pipeline until September. There are no reports of widespread food shortages. We are urgently tackling the lack of access to drinking water, a problem which has blighted the lives of Iraqis for many years. Urgent efforts continue to provide adequate medical supplies and equipment to Iraq's hospitals.
	"The reports of 16 cases of cholera in Basra are a matter of concern, although fortunately there have been no deaths. To put this in perspective, cholera is endemic in southern Iraq at this time of year. Work is continuing to improve water and sanitation facilities, and DfID has positioned in Kuwait cholera kits for 11,000 cases to be used by the WHO as required.
	"The Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs (ORHA) is there to tackle the huge task of restoring civil administration. Increasing numbers of Iraqi public servants are now returning to their jobs. However, results in the early weeks have not been as good as we would have hoped. I therefore welcome the appointment of Ambassador Bremer to ORHA. Working alongside Major General Tim Cross and 40 British secondees, he will bring fresh impetus to ORHA's effort.
	"On the political front, we have already seen evidence of the exercise of the new-found religious and political freedoms in Iraq. I welcome the peaceful return to Iraq from Iran at the weekend of the Shia religious leader, Ayatollah Hakim, and of other religious and political leaders. The meetings of Iraqi representatives in Nasiriya on 15th April and in Baghdad on 28th April mark the start of a process of bringing together a national conference in which all Iraq's regions and ethnic and religious groups are represented in order to select an Iraqi interim authority. This body, which will comprise both political figures and technocrats, will progressively take on responsibilities for the administration of Iraq as a whole.
	"We hope that the national conference can be held within the next few weeks. In order to assist the process, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has appointed a senior British diplomat—John Sawers, our ambassador in Cairo—as the Government's special representative to Iraq. His task is to work with United States representatives and a wide range of Iraqi people to ensure an open process leading to a representative interim Iraqi authority. In the few days he has been in Baghdad, Mr Sawers has already met a number of leading Iraqi political figures. I am also pleased to tell the House that last week we opened an office in Baghdad—on the site of our former embassy—headed by Christopher Segar, who was deputy head of mission when the British embassy closed in 1991.
	"I turn now to the draft SCR. The United Kingdom and the United States fully accept our responsibilities under the Geneva Convention and Hague regulations. This point is explicitly recognised in the draft resolution. Neither the Secretary-General nor members of the Security Council are proposing that the UN should run Iraq. But we are all concerned to ensure that the UN plays a vital role in post-conflict Iraq.
	"The draft resolution gives the United Nations the full opportunity to play that role. It does not deal with every issue. It concentrates on the points which need to be settled now for the benefit of the people of Iraq. It sets out important principles for the future of Iraq, including territorial integrity and disarmament of weapons of mass destruction.
	"The resolution also provides, in operative paragraph 5, for member states to prohibit trade in or transfer of looted cultural artefacts. The three key issues in the resolution are: first, the role of a UN special co-ordinator and the associated political process; secondly, the lifting of sanctions and the creation of a new Iraq assistance fund to target resources on the reconstruction of Iraq; and thirdly, arrangements for the sale of oil and the handling of oil revenues.
	"Operative paragraph 8 of the resolution sets out a substantial mandate for a UN special co-ordinator to play a full part in all aspects of post-Iraq activity from humanitarian efforts through economic reconstruction, human rights, rebuilding police capacity, promoting legal and judicial reform, and, crucially, the political process.
	"On the latter point, the draft provides that the special co-ordinator should work with the occupying powers and those assisting them (defined collectively in the resolution as "The Authority") for the,
	"restoration and establishment of national and local institutions for representative governance".
	Operative paragraph 9 states that it,
	"supports the formation, by the people of Iraq with the help of the Authority and working with the Special Co-ordinator, of an Iraqi Interim Authority as a transitional administration run by Iraqis until a permanent government is established by the Iraqi people".
	"Like all drafts, this one is open to improvement and we are discussing it constructively with our Security Council partners. But the mandate in this draft would give the UN the scope it needs to play its full role in all aspects of post-conflict Iraq. One of the reasons I would like to see this resolution passed quickly is to enable a UN special co-ordinator to get cracking on the ground as soon as possible.
	"The second key issue is the lifting of sanctions and the creation of a new Iraqi assistance fund. Economic sanctions relate to Iraq's past and now need to be removed. Operative paragraph 10 provides that all sanctions are lifted with the sole exception of the arms embargo.
	"Ending the economic sanctions regime requires new arrangements for dealing with Iraqi revenues. The wording in this resolution is designed to ensure that all funds from Iraqi oil revenues can be used quickly and effectively for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
	"The draft resolution gives the Secretary-General authority for a period of four months from its passage to ensure the delivery of priority civilian goods under contracts already approved and for which funding has been allocated. This pipeline amounts to some 10 billion dollars.
	"Remaining funds in the existing escrow account will be transferred to a new Iraqi assistance fund. This will also receive funds from two other sources; that is, revenues from the sale of oil and funds of the former regime frozen by banks outside Iraq since 1990 under successive UN resolutions.
	"The IAF will therefore rapidly become the primary source of money for the development of Iraq. The funds will be disbursed by the authority in consultation with the IIA.
	"The resolution is specific about the purposes for which the money can be spent. Operative paragraph 13 spells out that,
	"the funds should be used to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, for the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq's infrastructure, for the continued disarmament of Iraq, and for the costs of indigenous civilian administration and for other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq".
	The assistance fund will be subject to an international advisory board including representatives of the UN Secretary-General, the IMF and the World Bank, and will be audited by independent public accountants chosen by this board and not by the coalition.
	"The third issue is the control of oil sales. Operative paragraph 18 requires that sales shall be made,
	"consistent with prevailing international market practices",
	that they will be audited by independent public accountants reporting to the international advisory board, and that the funds will go to the Iraqi assistance fund, except for a percentage which will go to the UN Compensation Commission for claims relating to the previous Gulf War.
	"On weapons of mass destruction, a letter to the Security Council, and annexed to the resolution, stresses the importance of this objective. Dr Blix himself has recognised that the situation is not right at present for UNMOVIC to return—a point I was able to make to the House in a Statement on 28th April. Separate arrangements may therefore be needed to provide international validation. So the role of UNMOVIC in Iraq is not an issue which needs to be dealt with in this resolution, although we may need to address it in later resolutions.
	"In the interests of the people of Iraq, the sponsors of the resolution will be working for its early adoption. It is not a take it or leave it text. Negotiations will be necessary. But from my discussions with Foreign Ministers of the Security Council members, I find a strong political will to get the UN back into the business of helping build a better future for Iraq. This draft resolution gives the UN that important role".
	My Lords, that completes the Statement.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we are all extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating this long and full Statement, of which many aspects will require further careful study. Perhaps I may also take the opportunity personally to express my pleasure, as have other noble Lords, at the new position of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. Although it grieves me to say so from the Opposition Front Bench, there is no doubt that the Government now have a uniquely powerful international team. I think we all feel honoured by that.
	This change of position and promotion has come at a crucial moment. Although it is neither entirely clear to us why the previous development Secretary went, nor what Clare Short understood to be the role of the United Nations in the reconstruction, it is clear that those are both entirely relevant matters. It would be interesting to learn at some stage, although perhaps not today, whether assurances about a UN mandate were or were not given to Ms Short. There appears to be a straight division of views on that point.
	However, that is not the only matter which is unclear. The role of the UN, about which the Statement has much to say, at earlier stages had been said to be vital, but, after having read the details of the draft resolution, that role is still a little ambiguous. It all depends on what is meant by the word "vital". In this context, does it mean "leading", or just helping through the various agencies, with the many detailed proposals set out in the Statement?
	A further aspect not touched on, although it is one which might be said not to be the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, concerns the remarkable recent changes in the American team. Given that we and the Americans are intimate partners in this whole enterprise, why has Barbara Bodine suddenly been recalled after only three weeks? That is a very short time indeed. Were the British Government consulted about it? Were they told the true story behind that development? Furthermore, where does General Garner now fit in with the new supremo, Ambassador Bremer? How does his arrival fit in with the plan for the interim authority to be set up and encouraged to get going by the end of this month? How affected are the plans for the interim authority, which presumably are being pressed very fast despite the changes being made at the top, by the return of Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, the ayatollah mentioned in the Statement, where he is welcomed? Will he be a part of the interim authority?
	I turn now to humanitarian issues. There were full plans for civilian order and facilities to be restored, but it is clear that they are not yet in place. We were given detailed assurances that preparations were fully in place, but as the Statement candidly says,
	"the results have not been as good as we would have hoped".
	We would all admit that everything happened faster in Baghdad than the gurus and the experts said. They told us that a siege could last for months, although of course there has been no prolonged siege. As Tim Cross remarked in a newspaper article, the script has moved much more quickly than anyone had expected. But, some five weeks after the end of fighting, we are still receiving reports that the lights are not yet on, policing is not yet operative, running water systems are not working, hospitals are under-equipped, rubbish is not being collected, raw sewage runs in the streets; it was acknowledged in the Statement that cholera has broken out in Basra, while criminal gangs roam freely. However generous one's interpretation and however brilliant was the military operation, it seems a long time since the brave Hillsborough declaration to the effect that there would be rapid delivery of the necessary humanitarian assistance. While some of this may be inevitable—after a war there is always chaos—it is a pity that plans were not put in place to deal with these aspects a little more swiftly.
	I turn now to the draft resolution mentioned in the Statement. Has the issue of the legal ownership of oil lifted from Iraq now been clarified? If it has, then that is very good news. However, reports still talk of vast complications surrounding the issue of lifting and the claims of Iraq's former debtors for any of the proceeds from oil revenues.
	Can we also have clarification of the reports today that the weapons of mass destruction expert task force is to be withdrawn from Iraq? If those reports are true, it is very difficult to understand why that should be the case. I hope that it does not indicate that the search for weapons of mass destruction is now being given up. If it does, then some serious explanation will be needed as to why so much emphasis was put on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in justifying the campaign in the first place. It was an emphasis which I believed, and said so at the time, to be a mistake.
	Lastly, have the Government remembered that modern states work in partnership not only at governmental level, but in a thousand other ways through non-governmental organisations, educational exchanges and many other voluntary and independent efforts? Are plans being laid to open up co-operation on the rebuilding of Iraq not only between the United States and the United Kingdom, but also with other nations such as, for instance, Japan, which stands in readiness and which has vast experience of overseas development that it is willing to share? I mention also, of course, the neighbouring Arab states, as well as the Iraqi people themselves, who must be involved in the rebuilding of their damaged nation. I would greatly value the Minister's response to some of those questions.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for repeating the Statement made in another place. I wish also to echo the congratulations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, on the promotion of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. She has been a marvellous Minister in this House and has built a sound reputation in those parts of the world in which she has worked so extensively and with such success. We are all delighted to see her promotion.
	I shall start, as did the noble Lord, Lord Howell, by saying that the Statement leaves a great many questions to be put to the Government. For reasons of time I shall seek to be as concise as possible. Perhaps I may say, first, that there must be real concerns about the role of the United Nations as set out in the Statement. For example, we understand that a special representative is to be appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, but it is not clear what powers that gentleman or lady will have. References in the draft resolution almost all refer to "co-ordinating", "bringing together" and so forth. But the general impression is that the powers will be substantially less than those conferred on Mr Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN Special Representative in Afghanistan. Will the Minister be kind enough to tell us in what ways the powers of the Iraq special representative will be different from those of Mr Brahimi? It does not look as though he or she will have a central role.
	Further in regard to the United Nations and weapons of mass destruction, to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred, I share his profound concerns. We understand that the US team is to withdraw within the next couple of weeks, while the Statement says rather vaguely that there is no particular point in talking about the role of UNMOVIC, despite the fact that only two weeks ago, the chief inspector, Dr Hans Blix, said that:
	"We could return within two weeks, if asked".
	Is the real problem here that the security of the inspectors is in doubt? If that is the case, why cannot steps be taken to protect them along the lines suggested, for example, by the Carnegie Endowment? However, if that is not the case, then why are not the inspectors being brought back to Iraq to confirm the discoveries that so far have not been made with regard to weapons of mass destruction? This point needs to be made loud and clear: without such validation by internationally respected inspectors, the world will simply not believe any claims that may be made by the coalition, however justified those claims may be. That is even more the case given that Dr Blix himself has cast doubt on some of the intelligence reported over the course of the war which subsequently has been found to be, to say the least, very unstable as a basis for the resulting declarations.
	I share the deep concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about the present situation of civilians in Iraq. While I do not wish to go over all the Statements that have been made—although the noble Lord was right to point out that we have been told repeatedly that provisions and the basis on which the peace could be won had been put in place—I wish to put a further question. Now that we know how serious is the situation, why does there appear to be no way, for example, to send in emergency teams of engineers—as was mentioned earlier at Question Time—and why cannot the police force be asked to second people to Iraq in the same way as was done long ago for Anguilla, Grenada and other parts of the world? It also took place to a great extent in Sierra Leone—and for that I pay full tribute to the troops involved—where lawlessness was quickly dealt with by the British Army and guerrilla forces brought under control. Are steps being taken to deal with this extremely unfortunate situation as quickly as possible? Today's International Herald Tribune states that "Lawlessness is pervasive" and refers, in particular, to the serious situation in Baghdad where large parts of the city are in a state of anarchy.
	It is difficult to envisage the Iraq interim authority having the powers it should have unless there is some kind of United Nations validation. Having looked quickly through the resolution, I cannot see any position given to the UN to validate the Iraq interim authority. To put it bluntly—I returned from the United States only last night—that interim authority is now the subject of extreme divisions between the different departments of government in the United States. It is widely speculated there that divisions between the State Department and the Pentagon have already shown up in some of the changes referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, in regard to the administration of a peace-making system in Iraq.
	The Statement refers to the Iraq assistance fund and the way in which the revenues of Iraq's oil industry will be put into that fund. What then is the role of Halliburton, which received a contract for dealing with oil well fires, of which there are almost none, and oil well break-downs, of which there appear to be few, and which has subsequently moved on to obtaining a substantial contract for the pumping and distribution of Iraqi oil? How is this compatible with the Prime Minister's statement that oil revenues will be put in trust for the Iraqi people. What exactly is the relationship of Halliburton to the Iraq assistance fund and to the Iraq interim authority? Will its contract come under the control of the interim authority once it is recognised?
	Extremely serious questions are raised by the Statement. I have no doubt that the Government are doing their best but some of the issues about who is responsible, who is accountable—and to whom—have not been answered. They raise extremely serious questions about how the peace is to be sustained in Iraq.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the way in which they have dealt with the Statement. I join with them in rejoicing at the new position of my noble friend Lady Amos. She is uniquely well prepared for this excellent new appointment. I rejoice not only for my noble friend but for the House. It is a very good thing that there is a Secretary of State from your Lordships' House. She is much to be congratulated on that.
	Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised questions about the vital role of the UN which was referred to in the Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place. In paragraph 11 of the Statement my right honourable friend points out that,
	"Neither the Secretary-General nor members of the Security Council are proposing that the UN should run Iraq. But we are all concerned to ensure that the UN plays a vital role in post-conflict Iraq".
	We have discussed this issue on a number of previous occasions but it is important to note that at no point has it been suggested that the United Nations itself could run post-conflict Iraq—an agency will carry out that task—but it should be the authority under which such activities take place.
	Three key issues in the draft resolution are debated in paragraph 13 of my right honourable friend's Statement. First, the role of the UN special co-ordinator, about which further points have been raised and to which I shall return; secondly, the lifting of sanctions; and, thirdly, the arrangements for the sale of oil. Your Lordships have concentrated on all of those issues during previous questions.
	Not all noble Lords will have a copy of the draft resolution but it is spelt out in operative paragraph 8 that the Secretary-General's special co-ordinator's responsibilities will involve co-ordinating activities of the United Nations in post-conflict processes in Iraq, co-ordinating among UN and international agencies engaged in humanitarian assistance and reconstruction activities. It then lists nine different areas, including co-ordination of humanitarian and reconstruction assistance; support for the safe, orderly and voluntary return of refugees and displaced persons; working with the authority and the people of Iraq with respect to the restoration and establishment of national and local institutions. There are nine specified points of co-ordination which go a substantial way to answering the noble Baroness's pertinent points on that issue.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked what was happening on the United States side and about the recall—as it has been described in the press—of Ambassador Bodine. As the noble Lord will appreciate, that is a matter for the United States Government. I have no further details of the circumstances in which the decision was taken.
	Jay Garner's role as the head of ORHA continues. His role on the political side is mirrored by Zalmay Khalilzad. The role of Ambassador Bremer is to bring together the political side and the reconstruction side of American activities and, as I understand it, in doing so he will report to Mr Rumsfeld and not to General Franks. I hope that adds a little more substance to what is happening on the American side.
	I remind your Lordships that we now have the valuable presence of our, until very recently, ambassador in Cairo, John Sawers, an Arab expert who will bring valuable advice and expertise to the situation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked me about the assurances given to Clare Short. As your Lordships can imagine, I was not party to any conversations. However, I can tell the House that every action taken in Iraq is consistent with what we have said about the role of the United Nations and in accordance with legal advice. That is the basis on which we have operated in discussing the United Nations Security Council resolution. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has expressed his thanks to Clare Short for the valuable work she carried out in the Department for International Development. We can safely say that she raised the profile of aid on the international agenda. She has been a recognisable and very formidable figure on the international scene in relation to aid.
	It is quite true—the Statement is unequivocal—that matters on the ground in Iraq have not worked out as well as we had hoped. However, we should look on the positive side of the Statement made by my right honourable friend. There is now access to power and water in 80 per cent of Iraq. Although there are still security problems—about which we have made no secret—they are largely problems of crime and looting. I do not say that those are not serious problems, but they are not so much on the military side.
	The noble Baroness made an important point about getting reinforcements to deal with these issues and I agree that we should try to improve expertise. With the additional personnel we are sending to ORHA, which will bring the United Kingdom strength there up to some 40 civil servants collected from around Whitehall, and with the presence of Mr Sawers, we should be able to better target the real needs of the Iraqi people and decide where we can best get added value, whether bilaterally or through EU agencies or United Nations agencies. The noble Baroness has made a valid point which goes to the heart of the advice we expect to receive from Mr Sawers.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell, raised the question of the legal ownership of the oil in Iraq. Again, that issue is addressed in the United Nations draft resolution. As did my right honourable friend in another place, I stress that the resolution is a matter for discussion. As he says, no draft resolution has ever been brought to the table that cannot be improved with negotiation. But with paragraph 9 supporting the formation, with the help of the authority and working with the special co-ordinator, of an Iraqi interim authority as a transitional administration, we see the beginnings of moving towards ensuring that Iraqi oil is not only owned by but administered by an Iraqi authority.
	Of course it is terribly important that these questions continue to be addressed. We are in an evolving situation and I hope your Lordships will agree that my right honourable friend has been assiduous in bringing forward Statements as and when each new step is taken. No doubt we shall hear more on that in relation to operative paragraph 9.
	I understand that the reports of the weapons of mass destruction taskforce are misleading. It is not being run down and those statements have not had any real basis in what is happening on the ground. I hope that we will be able to give your Lordships more information about that. I think the Statement addresses the point about the weapons of mass destruction inspectorate. The noble Baroness felt that it could have been more forthcoming in this respect, but the Statement is specifically about the draft resolution in front of the Security Council now. That matter is not addressed here, although, as my right honourable friend's Statement makes clear, it may be covered by future resolutions.
	I am always rather afraid when the noble Baroness returns from one of her visits to Washington; she comes back armed with all sort of information and points she wants to raise. It is no secret that there has been a difference in emphasis between the Pentagon and the State Department. We all find, whatever part of government we come from, that different emphases arise. The point is that government should co-ordinate properly across the board. In the changes to ORHA and the arrival of Ambassador Bremer, we have seen the coming together of the two sides, if I can put it that way, from the United States. The points made by the noble Lord about international co-operation being crucial are very well taken.
	The only other point is to do with the question raised by the role of Halliburton. I am afraid I shall have to write to the noble Baroness about its role. As I understand it, the oil revenues are not being administered by Halliburton; it is looking at the mechanics of getting the oil out of the ground and not at the issues of the dispersal of funds which arise from the oil revenues. However, the noble Baroness has raised a question which is causing a bit of concern. I shall write to her with any further information that I can raise and put a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, in all honesty, to tell us that the internal situation in Iraq is not as good as we would have hoped is a gross understatement? Despite repeated warnings over many months that the post-military phase would be a good deal more difficult, it becomes more and more apparent that there has been far too little thought and preparation given to this phase by the alliance. As my noble friend on the Front Bench summed up very clearly, we are faced with a lawless mess, with Barbara Bodine recalled after three weeks and General Garner downgraded after such a short time. Surely Mr. David Kay, the former chief inspector of nuclear weapons in Iraq, was right in refusing to take the job which General Garner subsequently took. He complained that the organisation was not sufficiently interested in promoting democracy and that it was under-financed and poorly staffed. Are not the chickens coming home to roost?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I was with the Foreign Secretary while he was drafting the Statement, and he chose his words very carefully. He is at pains to be as accurate as possible about the situation in Iraq. The fact is that the situation is very different in different parts of the country. There has been less difficulty recently in Basra and probably more in Baghdad. There has been less difficulty in the south of the country and in some parts of the north of the country, but we know that there are pockets where law and order, and the writ of law and order, does not run. I do not think, therefore, that I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that this is a gross understatement. I think he has exaggerated, although the situation is serious in some parts of the country. I think my right honourable friend has been as accurate as he can be in putting forward the Statement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is quite right: we always knew that post-conflict Iraq would be extremely difficult. I am not sure whether his criticism is directed at both the British and American governments or just the American Government. However, we gave this a great deal of thought. He will be aware, given his excellent contacts with the military, of the care that our military have taken in the way they have conducted themselves in Basra, with their emphasis on getting out of their helmets and into their berets or tam o'shanters as quickly as possible and the sympathetic policing they have carried out in the British sphere of operations. So although a great deal of care has been taken, this has been an honest Statement. Things have not worked out as well as we wished. The Statement puts forward ways in which we hope these issues will be addressed not only by ourselves but through changes the Americans have made in the last few days—changes which I hope and believe will bring rather better results.

Lord Richard: My Lords, the present state of Iraq and the success, or otherwise, of the occupying powers is perhaps a rather larger matter which the House should debate and not solely on a Statement.
	My noble friend said that the United Nations should be the authority. I am not quite sure what she meant by that, and I would be grateful if she could expand on it. Secondly, on the actual role that the UN co-ordinator is supposed to play, is the UN meant to be part of a triumvirate—a partnership of equals between the two occupying powers and the United Nations? Or is the UN merely there to sit and listen and then gently advise and assist, as the occupying powers might think that it could be of some assistance?
	It is no secret that many people—I am one of them—believe that the UN is being pushed to the margins on this issue. If my noble friend can breathe some vitality into the role that the United Nations is supposed to be playing, I would be very grateful. But she and the Government have to do it in severely practical terms. We want to know exactly what it is proposed the UN co-ordinator should do. Merely to say that there are nine points upon which he could co-ordinate does not take us very much further.
	Finally, what reaction are the Government getting to these proposals from the Secretary-General and the UN Secretariat? Does Kofi Annan welcome the proposed role of UN co-ordinator, or would he be reluctantly prepared to do it if he were pushed into it?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, may I pick up that last point first? As I understand it, the Secretary-General has made it clear that he does not believe that the Security Council should run Iraq. I hope I made that point explicitly in answering the previous questions. Indeed, it was made explicitly in my right honourable friend's Statement. The Secretary-General, I understand, is discussing the draft not only with our friends in the United States and ourselves but with all members of the Security Council to whom it was circulated towards the end of last week. I cannot recall whether it was late Thursday or early Friday. However, it has been discussed in a number of capitals by British diplomats as well as United States diplomats.
	Let me turn to the point that my noble friend raised about the co-ordinator. I did not go through all nine points because I did not wish to try the patience of the House and I know that a number of your Lordships will want to raise individual questions. However, I hope that I read out enough of the draft resolution to make it clear that the role suggested for the co-ordinator is substantial.
	I read out three of the nine points. The remaining are as follows:
	"facilitating the reconstruction of key infrastructure, in co-operation with other international organisations . . . promoting economic reconstruction and the conditions for sustainable development, including through co-ordination with national and regional organisations . . . civil society, donors and the international financial institutions . . . encouraging international efforts to contribute to basic civilian administration functions",
	and "promoting human rights".
	The resolution also refers to,
	"encouraging international efforts to rebuild the capacity of the Iraqi civilian police force"—
	a very important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—and,
	"supporting international efforts to promote legal and judicial reform".
	The role being discussed for the special co-ordinator is very substantial. As my noble friend may recall, my right honourable friends were concerned that so far Kofi Annan only has an adviser, and not a particular representative or co-ordinator. It was felt that the role of the person particularly responding to the Secretary-General needed beefing up. There is a substantial response to that in the draft resolution.
	As regards the authority, we are trying to spell out the vital role referred to in the Hillsborough declaration. We are talking about the authority to lift sanctions and create a new Iraqi assistance fund to target resources, as well as to make arrangements for the sale of oil and handling oil revenues. Your Lordships have been clear that the authority, particularly for those matters, should come through the United Nations. That is clearly recognised in the draft resolution.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, in giving evidence to the International Development Select Committee just before hostilities commenced, Miss Clare Short predicted that as many as 8 million people could become refugees as a result of the hostilities. It is a great mercy that such apocalyptic scenarios have not come to pass and that the kind of problems outlined in her Statement today are the ones with which we are actually having to deal.
	Does the Minister agree that the support given her and to the Government from many sides of your Lordships' House was predicated on the basis that we would work, in the aftermath of the hostilities, for a civil society and the creation of a democratic Islamic country in Iraq? Resources now must be piled into that objective, because it will be on the basis of our success or failure in creating an alternative for the 30 years of tyranny that preceded it that our actions in Iraq will finally be judged.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is an entirely right and sensible statement from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The fact is that there were predictions of some pretty appalling outcomes flowing from any military action in Iraq. I do not for one moment underestimate the grief and suffering of many people in relation to the military action, but it has been nothing like as widespread or long-lasting as many feared. They really believed that such terrible consequences would flow from military action, and it is an enormous mercy that that has not been the case.
	We have always said that the tests that would be applied by history to the outcome of the conflict would relate to the sort of Iraq that emerged. It should be a democratic Islamic country, as the noble Lord said. A country under the rule of recognised law, living in peace and harmony with its neighbours, would be very much welcomed.

Lord Sandberg: My Lords, we had much publicity before the war started about co-ordination between Britain and the United States. We saw a lot of meetings between the Prime Minister and President Bush, all of which made the prosecution of the war very successful. Since the war, however, there seems to have been very much less co-ordination between this country and America. Given our experience of looking after countries that have been under despotic rule—in Malaysia, to mention only one example—are we having much dialogue with the United States? If we are, it seems to be less publicised.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, a great deal of dialogue is indeed taking place with the United States. The noble Lord is right in saying that there was a great deal of co-ordination before military action, for a very long time. Efforts were made to resolve the issue through diplomatic means, principally through the United Nations. A good deal of discussion took place about military action. However, I do not believe that he is right in saying that there is less co-ordination. I remind him of the declaration at Hillsborough, which was extraordinarily important.
	Although it is a separate issue, hand-in-glove with trying to resolve the future of Iraq, there has also been a good deal of discussion between this country and the United States about the Middle East peace process. Your Lordships will acknowledge that that is a separate and different issue, but none the less it is related in the minds of many people to the regional unrest.
	There is continuing dialogue, such as on the running of ORHA. My right honourable friend Patricia Hewitt has had discussions about that. My honourable friend Mike O'Brien, who is the Minister with responsibilities for the Middle East, has also been co-ordinating. Your Lordships may also be interested to know that I, too, have played a small role in these matters. I am hoping to go to Washington towards the end of this week to discuss some matters in my portfolio that have a bearing on the situation.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness can help us a little. It appears that the administration in Baghdad is all over the place. One cannot have a mayor who is here today and gone tomorrow. The rumours that Jay Garner is going to be replaced by somebody else does not look like joined-up government.
	Can the Minister give us an undertaking that the Americans really are thinking about joined-up government, given that this is an imperial situation, faute de mieux? We cannot get round that. If we are going to do imperialism, let us do it properly.
	Secondly, it is essential, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, to have a proper police force. What steps are being taken to raise, recruit and officer a proper new Iraqi police force? We could surely get assistance from the Pakistanis and the Arabs. There are lots of people other than PC Plod from Scunthorpe who could go and do it. We need a proper police force that can be new and separate from the old police force. That is the first essence of governing a country—that its citizens can go from A to B without being kiboshed, ambushed, or anything else. Police force, police force, police force—what steps are being taken towards that?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Earl struck an interesting note when he said that if we were going to do imperialism we should do it properly. Rather than spend a happy moment or two debating that point, which I am sure we shall have an interesting time discussing later, let me put him straight on a couple of points.
	The fact is that Jay Garner is not being replaced. As I understand it, he remains at the head of ORHA, and therefore at the head of the organisation dealing with reconstruction. His role is mirrored by Zalmay Khalilzad, who is looking at the political side. The Americans have brought the two together under the lead of ambassador Bremer who, as I told the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, will report directly to Mr Rumsfeld in the Pentagon. Nobody has been dismissed, got rid of or put on one side. Nobody is here today and gone tomorrow—or whatever phraseology pleases the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. That is not what has happened. A more senior figure has been brought in to co-ordinate the reconstruction and political side of American activity.
	I agree with the noble Earl that the issue of the police force is enormously important. I think that the points made by the noble Baroness were well taken. When we discussed the issue before, I was able to report to your Lordships that some of the Iraqi police force are returning to their posts. I hear what the noble Earl says—that he does not think that that is quite what is needed and that he wants to start all over gain. However, I think that it is actually rather important to use indigenous police where they can be trusted. It is enormously important not simply to put in outsiders, but to use those parts of the police force who are willing to work for a new order in Iraq.
	The 40 people from around Whitehall whom we have sent into Baghdad have a whole range of expertise. They have not all come out of DfID or the Foreign Office. What we have sought from right across Whitehall is real expertise in the areas that we think need particular attention in the Iraqi administration, particularly in Baghdad.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to elaborate a little further on one aspect of the draft resolution, the text of which has very kindly been provided for us in the Printed Paper Office? When she spoke on the central commercial and, indeed, legal issue of the moment—namely, who is to make title to Iraqi oil when sales recommence—she referred to paragraph 9 of the draft resolution. As I understand it, that refers to the role of the interim Iraqi authority in administration. The question of who can make title is, of course, not a question of administration; it is now a delicate matter of international and domestic law.
	Can my noble friend tell us what the draft resolution means as it stands at the moment? Paragraph 18 refers to the,
	"export sales of petroleum . . . and natural gas",
	which will be,
	"consistent with prevailing international market practices".
	As I understand it, that is as far as it goes. Do the Government envisage that the resolution should be a little more specific about what those "market practices" would entail in terms of who can make title on the market? That is doubly important for us in view of paragraph 20, with which—unless I missed it; I apologise if I did—I do not think my noble friend dealt. In substance, paragraph 20 states that all member states are to take steps to amend their domestic legal systems.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but we are nearly out of time.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am very sorry if we are out of time, but it seems vital that we have further information on this matter. We are to amend our legal system in all respects necessary to ensure that the sales of petroleum products and natural gas products originating in Iraq, and the proceeds of sale thereof, are,
	"immune from judicial, administrative, arbitration or any other proceedings (including . . . attachment, garnishment, or execution or other action".
	The Government must have some idea of what changes in our law, both statutory and at common law, that would need. So can my noble friend say more on those changes which the Government now see as necessary? If not, what amendment will the Government make to paragraph 20? If none, who can make title to Iraqi oil?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if I may, I shall be as brief as I can on this. I think that the noble Lord will find that part of the answer to his question is in paragraph 13 of my right honourable friend's Statement, which refers to "the lifting of sanctions" and, crucially,
	"the creation of a new Iraq Assistance Fund to target resources on the reconstruction of Iraq".
	The authority has passed to that new assistance fund. If the noble Lord looks at paragraphs 17 and 18 of the draft resolution, I think he will find more information on the role of the Iraqi assistance fund in providing for the urgent needs of the Iraqi people.

Courts Bill [HL]

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 87.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 145:
	Page 42, line 8, at end insert—
	"( ) An order under subsection (1) above shall not be made until a draft has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by resolution of each House."

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I hope that the Minister can reassure me that there is a provision somewhere which I may well have missed. When the Lord Chancellor, under Clause 87, prescribes fees payable in respect of anything dealt with by the courts listed, will his order come before this House and another place? The current arrangement is that, before a fee change, the usual statutory instrument is laid before the House. Indeed, such instruments are currently available in the Printed Paper Office in respect of the latest increase. That has been done under the old procedure, involving the 12 per cent increase to which I believe the Minister referred in an earlier debate. She acknowledged that that increase is the first for a while. She explained the position, and as a result I have not sought to pray against those statutory instruments which have been through all the normal procedures. Amendment No. 145 seeks to clarify how the new procedure provided for in Clause 87 will operate. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I warmly support this amendment. It seems to me to be absolutely fundamental. To the extent that Parliament is the sovereign body laying down the foundations of our system of justice, if an important order such as that to which the amendment refers—prescribing that the Lord Chancellor,
	"may with the consent of the Treasury by order prescribe fees payable",
	in the Supreme Court, the county courts and the magistrates' courts—is not laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament, it would mean that Parliament has surrendered the power that it should have to approve the whole system of charging people under our system of justice. I really do hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will find this a sympathetic and useful amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who spoke to the amendment. I hope that I can clarify exactly what we intend and give the noble Lord a full answer.
	The effect of the amendment would be to make Clause 87 subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Previously, over the past 125 years, in none of the three Acts of the Supreme Court—Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 and the Supreme Court Act 1981—and four Acts on county courts (the County Courts Acts of 1888, 1934, 1959 and 1984) has Parliament decided that it was necessary for instruments setting court fees to be subject to the negative or the affirmative resolution procedure. As such, the convention adopted by both Houses of Parliament in respect of fees orders issued under these current powers, is that they are laid before Parliament and are not subject to affirmative or negative resolution. The current draft of Clause 98 maintains that convention.
	While the Government already consult widely on proposed fees orders, Clause 87 introduces a specific statutory requirement for wider consultation with the heads of division and, for the first time, the head and deputy head of civil justice and, for civil proceedings, the Civil Justice Council—which I believe the noble Lord has already rightly praised today. This, therefore, provides for much wider consultation than is currently required.
	The Lord Chancellor has also carefully considered the views of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform and the points made in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, at Second Reading and considers that it would be appropriate for this clause also to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That will be introduced by way of a government amendment which will be considered later in this debate.
	That would provide for the first time for parliamentary scrutiny of fees orders and would bring the new power in line with other of the Lord Chancellor's powers to set fees; for example, fees charged by the Court of Protection under Section 106(5) of the Mental Health Act 1983. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that this will provide an effective oversight of court fees. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Renton and thank him for his strong support. He made some telling points about the need for effective scrutiny. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I was checking a point with him and I believe that he was about to intervene. I regard him as a great authority on these matters. The noble Lord correctly forecast exactly what the Minister was about to say and outlined it to me just as the Minister rose thus depriving himself of the opportunity of explaining the position. I apologise to him for that.
	I should like to reflect on the points made by the Minister. I am reassured by her reference to a later amendment which I hope we shall reach shortly. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 88 [Award of costs against third parties]:

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 145A:
	Page 42, line 22, at end insert—
	"( ) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for independent scrutiny of any decision by a court that there has been serious misconduct."

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, we now come to Clause 88. I have consulted with a number of organisations and understand that there are still considerable concerns about the clause. As noble Lords will recall, the clause entitled "Award of costs against third parties" is viewed with particular concern by the national newspaper industry and a range of broadcasters and especially by regional newspapers which perform a very important local community service in reporting the proceedings of local magistrates' courts and other courts.
	I understand that the various bodies to which I have referred fear that the potential use of this new power by magistrates and trial judges to penalise media organisations could well trespass upon their ability lawfully to report local proceedings or even merely to make representations against court reporting restrictions.
	As the Minister must concede, "serious misconduct" is a rather uncertain legal concept. Hence, no one can simply rely on reassurances about courts' past practice, for instance, in contempt cases, as the Minister suggested in a previous debate. Nor are there the safeguards of requiring the consent of the Law Officers, or, indeed, independent scrutiny and full hearing by another court of the alleged wrongdoing, as there are in the cases of proceedings for contempt against the media and prosecution for breach of reporting restrictions. I press the Minister to give reassurance on the following. There ought at least to be equivalent safeguards before third party costs orders can be made.
	It would be very interesting to know whether media organisations will be consulted on Clause 88 and, if they have already been consulted, the extent of those consultations given the concern that I express on behalf of a number of them. Will they also be consulted on the regulations to be made under Clause 88 with a view to ensuring that there will be proper statutory safeguards against what could be its chilling effect on lawful court reporting?
	Is it proposed that there will be guidance and training of magistrates, their clerks, the Crown Prosecution Service and Crown Court judges to stress that the enactment of these provisions should not in any way be used to curb lawful reporting of cases and the public scrutiny of the criminal courts?

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord moved a specific amendment. Is there a precedent for that kind of amendment anywhere in the law?

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I indicated that there was independent scrutiny but by another court, for instance where cases of contempt are brought against a newspaper or a media organisation. I am not aware that the amendment is to be found anywhere else in the statute book. Any similarity will be only an accident of drafting. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the amendment is a genuine attempt to introduce independent scrutiny of a court's decision that there has been serious misconduct. That is strictly necessary as we move down the new road proposed in Clause 88. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I support the principle behind what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, said in moving his amendment. It is important that there should be adequate provision to appeal from an order of this kind against a third party for payment of costs. I assume that the Minister will say that there is such a right of appeal. However, it is absolutely essential to spell that out. I am aware that there are somewhat more rigid restrictions on the right to appeal against orders relating to costs than to appeal against the subject matter of the decision itself. I certainly hope that the Government will assure us that there will be proper and full rights of appeal against a third party costs order. In that case the third party costs order, so far as the third party is concerned, is the substance of the decision against it.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Hunt. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that it seems to me that his parallel with the law of contempt is apt. It will be our common experience that from time to time judges, be they magistrates or others, will suffer the problem of the red mist coming over their thinking when confronted by activity that they regard as contemptuous of their court. In those circumstances the law has developed to allow for an independent scrutiny of that conduct by someone who does not share the same anger or irritation about what they have been subjected to in court. It seems to me that the form of independent scrutiny that my noble friend seeks is desirable as the parallel is very precise. The Minister may be able to reassure us that such independent scrutiny will be allowed for. Whether it needs to be in the legislation or not I know not, but the desirability of independent, separate scrutiny would appear to be there.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, made it clear that the amendment seeks to set out in any regulations made under subsection (1) of the new section inserted by Clause 88 that where a court makes a finding of "serious misconduct", that finding must be subject to independent scrutiny. "Serious misconduct" may not be 100 per cent precise but "serious" is enough and should not interfere with lawful reporting, which could not amount to serious misconduct. The provision is not meant in any way to limit the proper reporting and conduct of the media in relation to our criminal courts.
	The noble Lord is right to seek to ensure that the findings of the courts are open to independent scrutiny. I hope therefore that he and other noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will be assured by the knowledge that new Section 19B(5) and (6), which will be inserted by Clause 88, already allows for third party costs orders made in the magistrates' courts to be appealed in the Crown Court and for those made in the Crown Court to be appealed to the Court of Appeal. The provisions in new Section 19B follow the provisions already existing in Section 19A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which deals with wasted costs orders made against legal representatives. That section requires regulations to provide for appeals to be made from the magistrates' court to the Crown Court and from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal. Appeal courts provide the independent scrutiny necessary to ensure that costs orders are properly and fairly made, and if they are not, the appeal court can remedy them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, need not worry too much about the red mist. That can be dispelled elsewhere. In the light of that assurance I hope that the noble Lord will feel content.
	I turn to the precise questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The media were informed about proposals in the spring 2002. There have not been any formal consultations because the provision does no more than extend to criminal courts the powers that civil courts already have. It is an obvious lacuna in their powers. We intend the right of appeal to be absolute with no permission requirement. With those safeguards, I hope that all noble Lords will agree that we have the right level of protection to enable proper challenge to be made where the orders are made against third parties. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We were still concerned until, at the last moment, the Minister made it clear that it would not be necessary to appeal in the red mist atmosphere to the court that had just made the order for a right to appeal. The fact that that is not required would enable the sort of independent scrutiny to take place on another day. I was seeking such an assurance.
	I thank the Minister for having made it clear that there will be careful consultation on the regulations. I hope that that will include the organisations to which I referred. It is important that the necessary training takes place to ensure that the red mist—or however one describes it—does not descend on the court. Feelings can run very high over reporting but it is generally in the public interest that there should be an unfettered right to report.
	I am a little concerned about the definition of "serious". I know that the noble Baroness said that the matter is either serious or it is not. She acknowledged that that is not being 100 per cent precise. I am rather troubled by that, would like to think further about it and may wish to return to it at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 146:
	Page 42, line 26, at end insert—
	"( ) make provision for ordering third party costs against the prison service or any security firm for failure to deliver prisoners to the court on time, or at all"

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this amendment was moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who, unfortunately, is unable to be here today because of an important commitment in the courts. I should have preferred him to speak rather than me because he has personal knowledge of the problems that are raised by the amendment. I, as one whose practice has wholly been in the civil courts, do not. However, I am convinced by what he said.
	The failure of the Court Service and of private security firms to deliver prisoners to court on time—or, sometimes, to deliver them at all—is a major cause of cost and delay. That is unfair to all concerned: to victims, witnesses, prisoners, the judge, court staff and lawyers. There should clearly be financial penalties for culpable failure.
	My noble friend drew attention to a series of problems: the lack of co-operation between the Prison Service and private security firms; the failure of private security firms to employ enough staff to make it possible to do what they should be doing; delays that occur after the arrival of the prisoner at the court building; and failure to have enough staff to open all available interview rooms. The Government's steps to deal with those problems have been inadequate and more should be done. The amendment is a way of putting pressure on those involved to ensure that more is done. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes moving the amendment, could he explain whether the prisoner—

Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, may I put the Question? Amendment proposed, page 42, line 26, at end insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

Lord Renton: My Lords, now the noble Lord will have to wait until he comes to reply before answering my point, which I raised earlier.
	If a third party organisation fails to deliver the prisoner in time, the prisoner could suffer with regard to the settlement of his case; perhaps "settlement" is the wrong word and I should refer to the "decisions" in his case. He would be the person who most of all deserved a bit of compensation. When the noble Lord replies—or, if I may dare say so, and better still, when the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, replies—could he or she say how the prisoner will be compensated for being treated in that way?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested, this is a repeat of a debate we had in Committee. I compliment the noble Lord on picking up the baton left him by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. They are right in identifying this as an important issue.
	I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was on the verge of suggesting that there should be time off for bad behaviour on the part of those who fail to deliver prisoners on time. However, perhaps he was not getting quite as close to that, as I was rather facetiously suggesting.
	The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to make those who default in failing to deliver the prisoners on time subject to a cost order. The Government's view is that the amendment is unnecessary and, although well meant, is potentially undesirable.
	Clause 88 as it stands would allow the court to deal with the late delivery of prisoners as a result of serious misconduct—and we have debated that matter today. If costs are wasted because of late delivery, the court can look behind the issues and at the circumstances that caused the lateness. If the lateness was the result of serious misconduct, appropriate action can be taken.
	I cannot see that the noble Lord's amendment would add to that, particularly with no knowledge of what the regulations arising from the amendment might state. Putting unnecessary detail of this kind into regulations can be unhelpful. It might, for instance, encourage people to suggest that one particular type of serious misconduct is more important, and perhaps more appropriate, for the making of an order than another. While we share the noble Lord's concerns about the timely delivery of prisoners, it is right that the court, through this clause, should be able to deal with the costs wasted as a result of late delivery caused by a specific instance of serious misconduct.
	However, in our view, it would not be practical or appropriate to extend the scope of the clause beyond clearly identifiable misconduct in a particular case. It is not and could not be the role of the court to oversee the general level of performance of those contracted to deliver prisoners. That seems to be part of the problem with the amendment, as it takes us in that direction.
	In so far as the noble Lord's concerns relate to that issue, it is necessary to look to the terms of the contracts under which the prisoner escort services operate. My understanding is that under the contracts all prisoners should be delivered on time for courts; that is, delivered to the courts a minimum of half an hour before courts begin.
	The figures on that are helpful and suggest the scope of the problem. At national level for 2002–03, figures indicate that of the 1.25 million prisoners handled during that year, 76 per cent were delivered on time. Of the 24 per cent delivered late under the terms of the contract, 10 per cent were none the less delivered during the half hour before the court started, leaving 14 per cent delivered after the court had started.
	Under the terms of the contracts, prisoner escort contractors may be penalised for the late delivery of prisoners to courts where they are found to be at fault. Points applied against a contractor accrue during the year and should they exceed a set baseline, the excess points are converted to a financial remedy.
	New contracts are due to be let in 2004. The Prison Service is considering with other criminal justice partners what changes should be made to the terms of the contracts, including more flexible ways of working and financial remedies, to ensure that prisoner delivery is as efficient and cost-effective as possible.
	We have listened carefully to the argument and we can agree on the seriousness and importance of the issue. But we are not persuaded that anything can be gained by the amendment and this way of approaching the problem.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Will he address the point effectively raised by my noble friend Lord Renton on compensation?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there are no proposals to provide compensation. I return to the point that if the courts believe that there is an issue of serious misconduct, it is for them to deal with it in that way. The financial impact on the contractors delivering prisoners late exists and is subject to the conditions of the contract. That is common in all contractual relationships.
	As regards whether prisoners can be compensated, the amendment relates only to costs incurred as a result of lateness. I therefore believe that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, falls outside it. There are no proposals to compensate prisoners in the way suggested.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, first, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is important and should receive consideration. I understand that there would not normally be grounds for compensating a prisoner who is convicted and subsequently receives a sentence of imprisonment. Given that time spent on remand—and by definition these people will be on remand—is set off against the term imposed, nothing will be suffered by the prisoner other than the irritation of the failure to deal with the proceedings in time.
	However, possibly in cases where the prisoner is not ultimately given a custodial sentence, and clearly in cases where the prisoner is acquitted, it seems that there should be some form of compensation—

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, surely, in those more severe circumstances the prisoner would have a civil remedy.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, there would be a question surrounding how far the prisoner would have a remedy and it could not be ordered by the court hearing the trial. The prisoner would have to go to the civil courts to fight a separate action. Be that as it may, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, appreciates, the matter is outside the scope of my amendment, but I am grateful to him for having raised the issue.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The suggestion made by the Minister that civil proceedings should take place as a solution to these problems will cause additional expense and delay. Furthermore, it would be more elaborate and difficult than simply enabling the matter to be dealt with under this provision.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I turn to the substance of the amendment. The Minister's reply was reasonably encouraging because he pointed to the possibility of treating costs incurred in this way as third-party costs. However, the Government were not prepared to commit themselves to put the provision on the face of the regulations, let alone on the face of the Bill. In those circumstances, I am not minded to press the amendment today and must leave it to my noble friend to decide whether it is appropriate to bring it back at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 147:
	After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—
	"AWARD OF COSTS IN APPEALS UNDER PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 2002
	(1) Amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29) as follows.
	(2) In section 89 (procedure on appeal to the Court of Appeal), after subsection (3) insert—
	"(4) Subject to any rules made under section 91, the costs of and incidental to all proceedings on an appeal to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal under—
	(a) section 43(1) or (2) (appeals against orders made in restraint proceedings), or
	(b) section 65 (appeals against, or relating to, the making of receivership orders),
	are in the discretion of the court.
	(5) Such rules may in particular make provision for regulating matters relating to the costs of those proceedings, including prescribing scales of costs to be paid to legal or other representatives.
	(6) The court shall have full power to determine by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid.
	(7) In any proceedings mentioned in subsection (4), the court may—
	(a) disallow, or
	(b) (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet,
	the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with rules under section 91.
	(8) In subsection (7) "wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party—
	(a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative, or
	(b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay.
	(9) "Legal or other representative", in relation to a party to proceedings means any person exercising a right of audience or right to conduct litigation on his behalf."
	(3) Subsection (2) applies in relation to proceedings on appeals in respect of offences committed or alleged to have been committed on or after 24th March 2003.
	(4) In section 91 (Crown Court Rules) after "Crown Court Rules" insert "or (as the case may be) Criminal Appeal Rules"."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall be brief because the amendments are non-controversial. Amendment No. 147 would insert a new clause which closes a gap in the existing law. It would make clear that the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal has the power to award costs in appeals relating to the making of a restraint order or the appointment of a receiver under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Amendments Nos. 261 and 304 are consequential on Amendment No. 147.
	Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides a single consolidated scheme for the confiscation of benefit from all criminal conduct. That includes power to make a restraint order, freezing assets which might be used to satisfy a confiscation order and a power to appoint a receiver to manage or realise such assets. All restraint and receivership proceedings under the Act will take place in the Crown Court, which also has the power to make the confiscation order. That is a major change designed to improve efficiency. Under previous legislation, restraint and receivership proceedings were heard by the High Court. Consequently, appeals against restraint and receivership will now go to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.
	The Criminal Division has power to award costs in criminal cases, but not civil cases. It is unclear as a matter of law whether restraint and receivership proceedings are criminal or civil in nature. Therefore, it is not clear whether the Criminal Division can currently award costs in relation to the appeals which it hears. Amendment No. 27 would insert a new clause, which would put the position beyond doubt by amending the Proceeds of Crime Act so that there is explicit provision for the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal to award costs in restraint and receivership appeals.
	The new clause will be retrospective to the date of the commencement of the relevant part of the Proceeds of Crime Act, which was 24th March 2003. That will ensure that people whose cases are heard before the commencement of this clause will not be disadvantaged. Rules of court will be drafted to make provision for paying costs. Amendments Nos. 314 and 261 are consequential on Amendment No. 304.
	I apologise to your Lordships' House for the omission in the original legislation but I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this new clause is necessary and just in the circumstances. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I raise just one query. The Proceeds of Crime Act had separate parts relating to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I appreciate that this Bill relates only to England. What arrangements are being made to include equivalent provisions in Scottish or Northern Ireland legislation?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that we are in a position to ensure that there is a follow through or read across to other pieces of legislation. However, the noble Lord has asked for an important point of clarification. Although I cannot give it from the Dispatch Box now, I am happy to clarify that later in correspondence and to share the fruit of that with others involved in the debate today.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 92 [Periodical payments]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 148:
	Page 44, line 21, at end insert—
	"( ) Periodical payments shall, unless the court otherwise directs, be increased or decreased in accordance with the Retail Price Index."

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this is the first group of amendments—it forms part of a series of groups—to deal with questions arising from the Government's decision to confer on courts the power to make orders for periodical payments in actions for civil damages. We on these Benches strongly welcome as, indeed, I think does the Conservative Party, the principle of periodic payments as an alternative to fixed sum damages. However, there are a number of issues to be considered.
	Amendment No. 148 is similar although not identical to an amendment which we tabled in Committee. The earlier amendment made the inflation proofing of orders for periodical payments an absolute requirement. This amendment states that inflation proofing is to apply unless the court directs otherwise.
	I believe that the need to inflation proof periodical payments is obvious. It is not clear on the face of the Bill that Clause 92 gives a power to order periodical payments of variable amounts which are uncertain at the time of the order because they are dependent on something which will happen later; namely, the rate of increase in the retail prices index. So, it seems to me that that needs clarification.
	Amendment No. 149 raises a new issue. This would have been more appropriate for debate in Committee but I was not then aware of it. I raise it because the problem has been brought to my attention by Mr David Kemp QC, who is the editor of Kemp on Damages and therefore unquestionably one of the country's leading experts on the subject of damages. He feels very strongly about this particular problem.
	The problem concerns claimants who have suffered particularly serious injuries which mean that they will require long-term care and medical treatment. The costs of care and treatment have risen faster than the retail prices index and are likely to continue to do so. Therefore, it is not enough to order periodical payments of an amount sufficient to provide care and treatment today and simply index link them. Sadly, in a few years' time, even though index linked, those payments are likely to be inadequate to secure what are then regarded as the appropriate current standards of care and treatment.
	This is undoubtedly a serious problem with the law of damages. I also recognise that it is a problem with which it is extremely difficult to deal. After all, periodical payments are similar to a form of annuity. Index-linked annuities are standard nowadays. They are available because the liability to pay the annuity can be met by index-linked government securities.
	I believe it would be extremely difficult to produce a corresponding financial instrument which could be linked to the costs of care. It may well be that the only practicable way in which a periodical payments order could be linked to care costs would be for the Government to accept liability to cover the amount by which the increases in care costs exceed the increases in the RPI.
	I accept that that would be a major step which would need careful prior consideration and would not be suitable for inclusion in the Bill. Therefore, I have no intention of pressing Amendment No. 149 today. However, at the same time it is an important issue and I should be interested to hear the Government's response. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, in this group is not only Amendment No. 148 but also Amendment No. 149. Although I have the greatest respect for Mr David Kemp QC and those who would argue this case, perhaps I may point out to the Minister that I have considerable sympathy with what, undoubtedly, will be her response. The argument for higher indexation of future loss claims is currently being run in a number of claims for lump sum payments. The effect in one case I have seen is to reduce the discount rate which is used to calculate the effect of accelerated receipt in lump sum payments for future loss and was fixed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in 2001 at 2.5 per cent.
	In the one case I have seen the effect would be to take that 2.5 per cent figure down to nil or close to it. One can well imagine the drastic effect of such an increase in future loss payments, not only for the insurance industry but especially for the National Health Service.
	The noble Baroness will recall that she came to the Dispatch Box when a Motion to annul the order for 2.5 per cent was debated in November 2001. If claimants now seek another route to try to erode the discount rate by other means, that certainty which I believe the Baroness stressed on that occasion—there is a need for certainty for all parties to litigation—would be removed for the practitioners and the courts. I should explain that the discount rate already assumes the application of the retail prices index. Therefore, the courts and the Lord Chancellor are familiar with that.
	A problem highlighted by the rising care costs returns us to a debate we had in Committee about the fact that at present courts are forbidden from considering what treatment will be available under the National Health Service. The Minister reminded us that we await the report of the Chief Medical Officer. I am not aware that it has yet been published.
	However, when it is I hope that it will deal with this difficult anomaly whereby certain individuals are encouraged by those advising them to set up at home 24-hour nursing care just around themselves. That sometimes costs the National Health Service as much as it would to service and look after, say, six people in a private hospital ward. That is the extent of the money which is being spent to set up what are virtually private care hospitals. Further, because they are manned so as to produce 24-hour nursing care, the costs index looks seriously disadvantageous for the claimant. However, there is in reality always the National Health Service. But, at the moment, the courts are specifically forbidden from taking it into account. So we return to the periodical payments debate, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
	The Master of the Rolls' working party report Structured Settlements last year called for a broadening of the investments available. That needs to be looked at independently of this legislation. It is a far from simple process and one which will need to involve the insurance industry and its regulators at the Financial Services Authority as well as of course—and we have already mentioned it—the Treasury.
	The debate as to indexation masks the fact that this legislation is about introducing a fairer system in order to avoid as far as is practicable either over or under compensation. As the Lord Chancellor concluded in 2001 in the order that set the 2.5 per cent rate, that is a balancing act. The noble and learned Lord was then criticised by those who sought to put forward a similar amendment. I think that this is effectively a further round of that kind of criticism, although I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for giving us the opportunity to debate the matter.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I add my thanks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The noble Lord is absolutely right: we aim to create a fairer system; and we seek to create balance in order to avoid over or under compensation. Complex and important issues surround both these matters.
	Before I respond to this group of amendments, perhaps I may raise one issue on the previous group. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised a very important point. I fear that there may have been an oversight in relation to whether we have similar provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland. We shall look into the matter. If there has been an oversight we shall take steps to ensure that that lacuna is also addressed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, very much for that point.
	I turn to this group of amendments. As I said in Committee, we agree that it is important that the real value of periodical payments is preserved over the whole period for which they are payable. I expressed concern that, although at present it is common practice to link payments to the retail prices index—and it is likely that this will continue to be the case—it would not be appropriate to prescribe this as a blanket index to which all payments must be linked.
	Amendment No. 148 addresses these concerns and preserves the court's flexibility to link periodical payments to other indices where appropriate. We do not consider that the amendment is necessary as the need to allow for inflation is an inherent part of assessing the quantum of damages, which is already within the court's discretion. The calculation of lump sums allows for inflation, as do structured settlements.
	Nevertheless, we recognise that periodical payments ordered under these proposals will differ from structured settlements as they are now—for example, they will not require the consent of the claimant. Given the importance of inflation-proofing damages against future loss, we agree that there could be—I repeat, could be—some merit in removing any doubt that the court has power to index-link periodical payments. Therefore, if the House considers that it will act as a useful guide to the courts and parties, we are willing to consider bringing forward an amendment to make this power explicit, provided that—and I must emphasise this—a provision can be drafted in a way which is workable.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, correctly identified the difficulties that we have had historically with setting the discount rate. Furthermore, on previous occasions, I—and others before me—have emphasised the need for certainty for claimants in this very difficult time. If we are moving to a more settled arrangement for them, we obviously want to limit the opportunity for added insecurity to be built in. Therefore, I add that caveat.
	There are several issues which we will need to consider—for example, when and how adjustments for inflation should be calculated and the most suitable definition of the retail prices index. It will also be necessary to ensure that any amendment does not affect out-of-court settlements where, of course, the parties should be able to settle on whatever terms they choose.
	So although I am making a clear commitment to look at the matter, I should tell the House that I can by no means guarantee that we will be able to make any movement on the issue. However, I think it is right that we should have a vigorous look to see whether anything may be possible.
	Amendment No. 149 provides that a court may order that periodical payments for medicinal care and treatment costs are increased in line with care costs inflation, but should not exceed it. It goes on to provide that if, as a result of those increases, the amount of a payment exceeds that which would have been paid had payments been linked to the retail prices index, then the excess should be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament. I do hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says in relation to the similarity of that provision with earlier provisions, with which we were not able to find favour.
	In these cases, the uplifted payments would seek to reflect the true cost of compensation. It is an important point of principle that the negligent party should pay for the costs of his or her negligence. There is no reason why the taxpayer should have to meet those costs. The operation of such a scheme would be complex and would itself create additional costs. Of course we are aware of concerns that there are no suitable investments that would allow life insurers, who are subject to close matching regulations, to offer annuities that would match care and earnings-based indices exactly.
	However, it would currently be possible for insurers to provide annuities linked to the retail prices index plus a certain percentage. So it would be open to the court, if it thought that was the most appropriate way to quantify certain future losses, to order that they be linked to the retail prices index plus a percentage as a proxy for some other index. We should also keep in mind that not all periodical payments will be backed by insurance products and that the same regulatory considerations will not apply where payments are funded by other means.
	As I explained, the court already has the power to order payments linked to whatever index it considers suitable. A provision allowing it to order payments linked to care costs inflation is therefore unnecessary. It is important that the courts are able to take a flexible approach, so that where the circumstances of the case make it appropriate—if a defendant is unable to meet the terms of the proposed order because funding could not be adequately secured—he or she can inform the court and a different order can be made.
	I hope that I have given the noble Lord a comprehensive answer. I therefore invite him to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said about Amendment No. 148. Although I recognise that she has given no undertaking to act, I am grateful that the Government will at least consider whether something can be done to make clear beyond any doubt that Clause 92 permits payments that are linked to an index—and therefore not ascertainable at the time of the order, which was my concern.
	On Amendment No. 149, I am most grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and the Minister. The matter thoroughly deserves debate although, as I said, I recognise that it cannot be decided during the course of debate on the Bill. The noble Baroness implied that the Government would keep it in mind. There is plainly nothing that I can do to take Amendment No. 149 further at this stage. Returning to Amendment No. 148, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 150, I must inform the House that if it is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 151 to 156 inclusive because of pre-emption.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 150:
	Page 46, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 on page 47.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I immediately point out to the noble Baroness that I do not intend to press the amendment, but it gives the House a further opportunity to consider the whole question of variability or reviewability of the periodic payment provisions. The noble Baroness will be aware that there is ongoing concern about the detail of their implementation. I hope that she will take this opportunity again to address those concerns. There is grave concern about the scope of the review and its operation. It may introduce unwelcome uncertainty into the setting of reserves.
	The noble Baroness made clear that the power to vary will be tightly drafted and carefully controlled. Indeed, in Committee, she said:
	"Such a restricted system of variation should not require additional compensation over and above that already payable. Insurers are already providing for such eventualities".—[Official Report, 27/3/03; col. 1006.]
	That came as considerable reassurance, but the detail has yet to be set out. The noble Baroness would do a great deal to reassure those outside the House if she were now able to enlighten us about the timetable that will operate; the drafting of the regulations; or the extent of the consultation.
	Obviously, these are early days, but the noble Baroness will recognise that there has been a desire to write much more of the detail into the primary legislation. She has rightly resisted including too much detail on the assurance that there will be widespread consultation and time during the drafting of the regulations to consider the range of opinion advanced. However, it would reassure a number of people if she were able to provide more detail about the timetable.
	She may also be able to assure us that within the draft regulations there will be sufficient control on the use of the power to vary to avoid what could otherwise be endless satellite litigation. When we debated conditional fee agreements, I strongly urged that there should at least be a pilot scheme from which we could learn lessons and that more safeguards should be included.
	I suppose that in many ways I have benefited from that. Noble Lords will be aware that I am senior partner of Beachcroft Wansbroughs, which is one litigation firm involved in some of the satellite litigation. But I do not think that anyone has welcomed the extent of that satellite litigation—certainly not those involved in it—as we seek to clarify the extent of the conditional fee agreements. I am indeed pleased to hear the announcement from the Lord Chancellor's Department that the whole matter of conditional fee agreements will be reconsidered.
	I should not want us to go further down the road of periodic payments only to discover that a massive amount of satellite litigation again arises as the parties seek to explore the meaning of and intention behind particular words and phrases. Perhaps the noble Baroness can take this opportunity to reassure us all that that is most unlikely to happen. Bearing in mind that the provisions must work, we should like some assurance as to when we may see the draft order and rules of the court and exactly when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consult.
	Finally, grave concerns remain about how reviewability may operate. An early view of the draft order might do a great deal to alleviate those concerns. We approach Third Reading, with all the proceedings still to follow in another place. I hope that before the Bill finishes its passage through Parliament we may see at least something of the draft order so that we can turn our minds to it during the Bill's final stages.
	There is a genuine wish on all sides of the House for periodic payments to be made into a workable alternative. I recall that I, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and others spoke at reasonable length on a previous occasion about the need for legislation similar to the periodic payments provisions in Clause 92—although we did not then refer to reviewability—as being a much better system than the rather distasteful practice of producing a lump sum that is then imposed on families least able to cope with it. The guarantee of receiving payments for as long as one may live has enormous attractions when trying to break through the existing straitjacket of difficult and complicated calculations.
	We would not want a system to be set up that is even more complicated and difficult to administer than the current one. I hope that the noble Baroness will give us some reassurance about that. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. He is right when he says that there has been a genuine attempt by all involved in the process to make periodic payments a workable alternative. He is also right to highlight the distasteful, and sometimes painful, assessment that must be made of how long a claimant might reasonably be expected to live. That does not come easily at all. I agree wholeheartedly with him that periodical payments are a consummation devoutly to be wished, and for which many people in this field have longed for a long time.
	The amendment would remove Section 2B to prevent any variation of periodical payments. I understand the basis on which the noble Lord tabled it. We recognise that, in the majority of cases, a non-variable award is likely to be appropriate. Many foreseeable changes can be built into an annuity, and some are already. But, in cases where there is real difficulty in assessing the likelihood of a claimant developing a particular medical condition or overcoming a particular medical disability when the periodical payments order is made, the present method of compensation is unsatisfactory.
	Defendants and insurers usually provide for those eventualities by way of contingency payments. However, those payments often compensate for the chance that a future need may arise, rather than the need itself. If, for example, there is a 20 per cent chance of serious loss but the need never arises, the defendant or insurer would have made a payment unnecessarily. If the need arises, the claimant will be seriously under-compensated. In such cases, we believe that a variable order can provide the best solution. Defendants and insurers will not have to make payments for events that do not occur, but, if they do, claimants will receive the full compensation to which they are entitled.
	During our debates on this clause, we have all agreed that rehabilitation is of central importance. We believe that the provisions for variation may help to support a programme of rehabilitation. Some specific improvements in the claimant's medical condition could result in a need, for example, to aid mobility. In those instances, our proposals for variation will be able to improve claimants' prospects of rehabilitation by providing the additional support needed to sustain improvement. In other circumstances, improvements may reduce the level of payments needed. We believe that the power to allow scope for variation in defined circumstances provides the fairest system of compensation for both claimants and defendants.
	The noble Lord rightly asked about the timetable. I know that it is a matter of anxiety. I can give only my best estimate—I do not say "guesstimate". We will consult on the regulatory impact assessment of the proposed variation order in the autumn. We do not expect to implement the new powers before April 2004. We hope to have drafts of the order and the rules available at about the same time in the autumn. I do not know the precise timetable of when the Bill will go to another place and when it will come back, but we hope that the timing will be relatively robust.
	We are currently consulting stakeholders on the content of the rules. Noble Lords will know that the stakeholders have been of great importance in their contributions. They have been able to help us with the practical consequences of how the system will work. We, too, very much want the periodical payment arrangements to work in a way that will benefit claimants overall.
	I hope that that helps to clarify issues for the noble Lord. I understand why there is anxiety about the matter. I concur with the noble Lord that the last thing we wish to create is a system of satellite litigation, which would not be to the benefit of any of the parties, and that will involve the parties engaged in the process in expenditure that they could better use to do other things. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I recognise that the timetable is not solely in her hands, but I am grateful to her for giving a reasonable indication. For me, autumn occurs around September. If it were around September, that would be a very good month in which to scrutinise the drafts. Were the noble Baroness able to conjure the drafts earlier for those of us who have taken a particular interest in the Bill, we could not be more delighted. We would never hold the noble Baroness to the wording of the drafts. Therefore, even if the drafts were quite crude, it is their delivery that is important, not the precise detail. We would assist, one would hope, in ensuring that they were grammatically correct, but they do not have to be exact. I know that officials may take that as an indication that perhaps we might have them a few weeks earlier than we might otherwise have done.
	I warmly applaud the Minister's reference to rehabilitation. When the Chief Medical Officer's report is published, I very much hope that it will be right at the heart of the process. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, other noble Lords and I know well, there is an inherent injustice in the damages system. A range of people who are just as seriously injured are not entitled to any additional compensation. The rehabilitation of all those who are injured or suffer disease must be at the heart of the National Health Service. Where appropriate, getting them back to work and into the community must be at the heart of any process. I look forward to the publication of the Chief Medical Officer's report, when, no doubt, we will further discuss the matter. In the mean time, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 151:
	Page 46, line 19, at end insert—
	"( ) But no order may be made under subsection (1) authorising an increase of periodical payments unless in the proceedings in which the payments were originally ordered—
	(a) it was proved or admitted that there was a chance that at some definite or indefinite time in the future the injured person would, as result of the act or omission which gave rise to the case of action, develop some serious disease or suffer some serious deterioration in his physical or mental condition; and
	(b) the court assessed the periodical payments on the assumption that the injured person would not develop the disease or suffer the deterioration in his condition."

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 156. The amendments raise issues that, in many ways, overlap with those raised by the amendment that we have just debated. For some reason, they were de-grouped. I am not entirely sure why.
	We accept the principle that there should be a power to vary an order for periodical payments after payment has begun. But Amendment No. 151 restricts that power by allowing variation only on the same basis as that which applies to the variation of lump-sum damages orders, which can be made under Section 32A of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
	The closure of a damages claim without undue delay is very important. It is important for the defendants and their insurers. All professionals make mistakes; I certainly have done. The problem applies particularly to doctors, as their errors may lead to the severe physical disability of a patient; therefore, they fall within the category where variations are most likely to be made. Obviously, doctors who have made mistakes should be liable to pay damages. Once the case has been decided, its reopening should not hang over a defendant's head for life, without very strong reason. There are practical drawbacks, such as the need to keep medical records for the life of the claimant. Above all, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, said in Committee, closure is plainly in the interests of claimants. It is of enormous psychological importance for claimants to put the trauma of an accident behind them and to get on with their lives.
	Having said that, I recognise that there are exceptional cases. In some cases, it is extremely difficult to make a prognosis at the time of the court hearing; for example, where, if damages are awarded on the basis of the claimant's present condition, they may be too small, but, if it is assumed that the condition will worsen, and then it does not, the claimant could be overcompensated. In such exceptional cases, the best course may be to award damages on the basis of the claimant's present condition but to give leave to return to court for an increase.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is there any reason why something of that kind should not be dealt with in regulations, rather than in the statute?

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, there is a case for dealing with it in regulations. However, in this case, certainty is of considerable importance with regard to the financial consequences, particularly from the point of view of insurance cover and the role of professional groups, such as the Medical Protection Society.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, would that not be equally the case if regulations, rather than the original statute, applied?

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I accept that there would be some value in putting the matter into regulation. However, in this case, the requirement for certainty is sufficiently great and the need to give assurances to the people who are financially involved sufficiently important to make it desirable to have it in primary legislation and not in regulations, which can be changed at short notice and with relatively little debate.
	To get the right balance, we should select a formula and give parties confidence that it will not be altered without good reason. The formula that now applies to provisional damages is correct and should be retained for periodical payments. The Bill simply allows an order for periodical payments to be varied in circumstances specified by the Lord Chancellor, although the fact that the affirmative resolution procedure will be required is welcome.
	The intentions of the present Lord Chancellor, as outlined by the noble Baroness, are reasonable, but they are not binding on a future Lord Chancellor. Therefore, Amendment No. 151 would apply to the variation of periodical payments the same formula that applies to provisional damages and would exclude the power to vary the formula otherwise than by primary legislation.
	Amendment No. 156 is the corollary of that. New Section 2B(4) of the Damages Act 1996 will allow the Lord Chancellor to make an order varying existing legislation on provisional damages. That would enable the power to award provisional damages to be widened. In the absence of any evidence that the system is working badly, it would be inappropriate to give a power to alter it by statutory instrument. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I heard nothing from the noble Lord that indicated that the matter—or something like it—could not be dealt with by order, although the Government ought to have regard to the principles outlined by the noble Lord. I want to consider the matter more than I have done, but I do not think that anything that has been said so far makes it appropriate to amend the Bill. I go a long way with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on the issue but not as far as he wants me to.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in a debate that is similar to one that we had in Committee. I have already spoken to the matter in general terms in connection with the previous amendment, but, as Amendment No. 153 is included in the group, I thought that I ought to explain why I tabled it.
	The amendment would insert the word "only" into Section 2B(3), so that the list of circumstances in which the Lord Chancellor may make an order is restricted to the list set out in that subsection. That would clarify the Government's acceptance of the previous amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which took out the Lord Chancellor's power to make an order that operated irrespective of the terms of any court order or agreement.
	I want to give the Minister the opportunity to satisfy the House that the Government accept that the section, as now drafted, will permit the Lord Chancellor only to make orders that are within the scope of subsection (3)—that is, orders that will only operate wholly or partly by reference to a condition in the court order or agreement. This is the proposed restriction to circumstances equivalent to provisional damages by ensuring that a court order or agreement can be varied only if the original order provides for circumstances in which that variation can take place.
	Amendment No. 154 would leave out new Section 2B(3)(d), which would enable the Lord Chancellor to create rules of court in the order. We are aware that the Lord Chancellor will consult widely on the proposed secondary legislation and that such consultation will include practitioners, but we feel that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee is the best place for drafting rules of court. Rules need to work for the judiciary and for practitioners, and I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is best placed to make those decisions.
	Amendment No. 155 would remove new Section 2B(4), which is, in effect, a Henry VIII clause, entitling the Lord Chancellor to amend primary legislation on provisional or further damages. Can the Minister explain that? Whatever she may say about the restrictive use of such a power, it would enable the Government effectively to change the way in which damages are paid by a substantial extension of the scope of provisional damages. It is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but I am a little concerned that that is hardly an effective way to amend primary legislation.
	Will the Minister give us some reassurance on those points? I thought that it might be helpful if I dealt with those three amendments at this stage.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis for his support on the amendments. I agree with him that they are not appropriate. In the interests of clarity on the issue, I shall go through them amendment by amendment. I accept that it is a difficult area. There has been a lot of discussion and debate about this, but we have an opportunity to see whether we can reach a modicum of agreement.
	Amendment No. 151 would restrict the scope of any order that the Lord Chancellor can make allowing the upward variation of periodical payments to the circumstances in which provisional damages can currently be awarded. By preventing the making of any order allowing upward variation in any terms different from those specified, the amendment would defeat the purpose of providing for variation through an order-making power.
	As I said in Committee, the Government have no plans to extend the scope of variation after the initial order. However, that should not prevent us from keeping open the option of extending or limiting further the extent of variation, for example, in the light of experience and further developments in the insurance market or making any minor adjustments, should they prove necessary. The order-making power provides the flexibility to do this. It is important that this flexibility is not undermined. In relation to the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue of satellite litigation and the need to hone matters to ensure that they are right. There should be flexibility to change by order affirmative resolutions so that Parliament has an opportunity to look at it. That is what we are seeking to do; namely, to get the structure right but retain the flexibility if, from experience, we find that the assumptions we make now are not founded in fact.
	Furthermore, by basing the restrictions to the order-making power on provisional damages legislation and by referring solely to increases in payments resulting from a deterioration in the claimant's condition, the amendment would prevent us from making the initial order in the terms which we propose. Provisional damages do not allow for an improvement in the claimant's condition, nor do they allow the defendant to apply. We believe that variable payments should be available in these circumstances, not least to put claimants and defendants on a level playing field so far as is possible.
	Although we recognise the noble Lord's concern that the provisions governing variation should not be too open-ended, we do not believe that restricting them in the way suggested is necessary. The need for consultation and affirmative resolution provides the necessary safeguards to ensure that the order-making power is used reasonably and responsibly.
	Amendment No. 153 limits the provisions that may be included in an order to those listed on the face of the Bill. We have all previously said that this is a developing area of law; it is important that the framework for the order-making power is flexible enough to cater for future eventualities that cannot yet be foreseen. We believe that it would therefore be unhelpful to limit the provision in the way suggested.
	Amendment No. 154 removes the provision in new Section 2B(3) enabling an order allowing variation to make provision of a kind which could be made by civil procedure rules. I set out the position of the Government on this issue in Committee. The provision will not enable the Government to do any more than can already be provided for under rules of court. But it may be more efficient to deal with all provisions relating to variation wholly by order rather than a mix and match of rules and orders.
	As the House is aware, rules of court made by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee must first be allowed by the Lord Chancellor and are then subject to negative resolution by Parliament. However, any provision which is implemented by way of an order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. As this provides a higher level of scrutiny than is currently provided by the rules, we do not accept that this provision should cause any concern. In fact, we suggest that it should be welcomed.
	Finally, I turn to Amendments Nos. 155 and 156. These would prevent the Lord Chancellor making an order which amended legislation governing provisional damages. Amendment No. 155 would also prevent an order applying such legislation. As I said, again in Committee, to ensure that provisional damages can operate effectively alongside variable periodical payments, it may be necessary to make amendments to the legislation that governs those damages. There may be cases where both lump sums and periodical payments are needed. We believe that the best way of ensuring the combat—that was a Freudian slip, was it not?—I meant "compatibility" of the two systems is through the order-making power.
	I am, of course, aware of the concerns that this power could potentially allow substantive amendments to the scope of provisional damages. However, we believe that the need for consultation and affirmative resolution provide adequate safeguards to its use. They will ensure that any future order for variation, including one that made amendments to provisional damages legislation, would be subject to rigorous scrutiny and debate. If Parliament is not satisfied that the power is being used appropriately, it will be able to indicate that under the affirmative resolution procedure.
	It should give noble Lords comfort that what we have in the procedure that we are now adopting, and have in practice sought to adopt over a number of years, is the practitioner, the courts and the industry working together to obtain the best solutions possible to resolve these issues of personal injury. We should congratulate the committees which have worked together on the rules and orders which have proved to be sensible and workable and have worked to the advantage of all litigants. I reasonably anticipate that this will be the case too. In the light of all that I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, first, is reassured and, secondly, is content enough to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments made by the noble Baroness and I am partly persuaded. Amendment No. 151 is somewhat too rigid. The residual problem is that there should not be a reopening of the case unless at the time of the original order notice is given, in effect, to the parties that the case may be reopened. It is important that where the court hears a case and makes what it and the parties at the time believe to be a final decision, there should not be a subsequent reopening of the case—except, of course, on grounds such as fraud and so forth on which cases can now be reopened.
	In the circumstances, in the rather brief time available, I shall consider whether I want to table at Third Reading a more restricted form of amendment which will not put a tight band on the kind of variations which can be made but will limit variations to cases where the court, at the original hearing, has said that variations may subsequently be applied for. Be that as it may, today I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: moved Amendment No. 152:
	Page 46, line 19, at end insert—
	"( ) An order under subsection (1) may not apply to injuries that occurred prior to the date on which sections 2, 2A and 2B came into force."

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate on amendments in this clause. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has summarised, in Committee I raised concerns about the impact of settlement reviews on patients. I highlighted that an ongoing adversarial relationship between the patient/claimant and the defendant might act as a powerful disincentive to recovery and may even promote ongoing worsening of the patient's overall condition physically and psychologically. It will prevent closure on an incident for both patient and clinician.
	I accept that the Government have taken a firm position on the proposal to vary periodical payments and therefore seek to minimise the damaging impact of this measure on those involved in clinical negligence cases by proposing an amendment which will make the legislation prospective rather than retrospective.
	As currently drafted, Clause 92(2)(b) will apply to all cases settled after the Bill comes into force even if the negligent act occurred over 20 years ago. There is often a significant time lag between when a negligent act occurs, when it is reported and when a claim for compensation is finally settled. According to the Medical Protection Society, one in five claims, where the claim was valued at £500,000 or more, made against their medical members between 1996 and 1999 related to incidents which occurred 10 or more years earlier.
	This is an important point for medical defence unions offering indemnity on an occurrence basis. Doctors belong to a defence union and their indemnity is occurrence-based; so provided the doctor was in membership at the time of the incident giving rise to the claim, he or she can apply for assistance even if membership ceased before the making of the claim. To ensure proper funding for claims, it is essential that in each subscription year sufficient income is secured to meet all the claims arising from incidents in that year, irrespective of when the claim is made.
	As a consequence, the introduction of rules applying to new claims rather than to new injuries is retrospective, as the rules would apply to years where subscriptions have already been set and collected. Defence union organisations such as the Medical Protection Society, the Medical Defence Union and the Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland will not have had the opportunity to set and collect subscriptions at a level that would encompass the costs of having settlement reviews.
	In contrast, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill currently being considered in the House of Commons introduces the concept of recovery of NHS costs in clinical negligence cases. It will apply to injuries which have occurred only after the date the legislation comes into force. The Department of Health has accepted that it would be unfair on those insurance companies or not-for-profit organisations which fund the cost of claims to be "caught" for accidents that had taken place long before the measure was even conceived.
	If new Section 2B in Clause 92 of the Courts Bill is agreed without amendment, we shall have two new pieces of legislation relating to clinical negligence that take effect in completely different ways. The Courts Bill will impact on injuries that happened many years ago, while the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will affect injuries that occur only after the Bill is enacted in 2004. The amendment I have proposed would address that inconsistency. If accepted, the proposals to introduce settlement reviews will become truly prospective and thus will reflect the stance that has been embraced by the Department of Health. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I wish strongly to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and to say that I believe that she has put forward a persuasive argument, in particular over the anomaly between the two Bills. It is surprising that the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill should be framed so differently from the Courts Bill. It may be that the Minister will want some time to reflect on that, but it is a curious anomaly.
	I wish to add my concerns to those expressed by the noble Baroness about the element of retrospection involved in the present provisions. It makes the task of medical defence societies and insurance companies in general very difficult indeed if they are to be faced with retrospective changes to legislation which alter substantially the law on damages. As the Minister will know, it is something in respect of which many representations have been made in the past. The system should be much clearer and more precise. When changes are proposed, they should take effect only so far as the future is concerned rather than seeking to claw back what can be up to 20 years before a claim needs to be made in the first place. That is particularly true in cases involving minors. That is because there is a three-year limitation period coming on to 18 years which may or may not have elapsed in whole or in part.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the serious concerns which have been raised.

Lord Chan: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Finlay. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, it is important to ensure that there is no anomaly between this Bill and the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. Another point should be made about retrospection. In maternity cases and those involving new-born babies, the 20-year rule is making it extremely difficult to recruit into the relevant professions, although the need for doctors, nurses and midwives in our hospitals continues to grow.
	Further anomalies could arise when we take into account the advances in medical care over a period of 20 years. It would be disastrous and bad for the morale of the medical professions and the National Health Service if old cases were to be reopened. Advances in care would mean that cases that had been adjudicated in the past would today no longer be cases with a valid claim of negligence because we have better means of treatment as well as better procedures and guidelines. I support my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. I welcome the move away from lump-sum settlements and the provision of periodic payments to patients in clinical negligence cases, but the Government must be realistic about reviews which would create a continuing uncertain liability.
	The defence organisations, which are non-profit making, would need to increase their reserves to meet the possibility of an order for increased payments between 10 and 40 years after the initial settlement. For many years I served on the council of the Medical Protection Society and later chaired the dental side of that organisation. It is a mutual body for which subscriptions are collected from members on an annual basis to meet the liabilities arising from that year. The provision of reviewable settlements would introduce huge uncertainty about future liabilities, leaving members either over-funded or under-funded. That burden would have to be borne by the individual doctor.
	These costs already represent a tremendous burden. In certain parts of the country it is difficult to encourage doctors to work in obstetrics. Although the legislation introducing reviewable periodic payments is not intended to be retrospective, clinical negligence claims are not normally initiated, let alone decided, until years after the incident. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the amendment.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I do not have anything to add to what has already been said by noble Lords who are far more competent to speak on these issues from a professional point of view. I wish simply to endorse what has been said by all the speakers. I hope that the Government can see their way to giving some satisfaction as regards the arguments put by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lords, Lord Chan and Lord Colwyn; those noble Lords bring to the debate the expertise of practitioners in the field. However, obviously they also bring the attendant anxieties. I hope that I shall be able to explain why the Government have taken the view as set out in the Bill, and that I shall be able to allay some of that anxiety.
	Amendment No. 152 would limit the application of an order allowing variation to injuries which occurred after the date on which new Sections 2, 2A and 2B came into force. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making me aware of her concerns on this issue in advance of our debate. I thank her for that courtesy.
	In Committee I explained that although we recognise the general concerns expressed about the "retrospective" effect of legislative change, and the fact that these cases can sometimes take several years to settle, where the court makes a variable periodical payments order, insurers and medical defence organisations should be able to reserve or reinsure against it, as they do now in regard to provisional damages orders. I want to emphasise the fact that, in introducing periodical payments, we are not seeking to change the basis of liability, but rather we seek to change the way in which people are paid. So the issue of liability rests where it is.
	If the provisions relating to the court's power to vary periodical payments applied only to injuries occurring after the date of commencement, it could be several years, as the noble Baroness said, before the provisions took effect. In the meantime, in some cases where variation was appropriate, awards would continue to have to include provision for events which might never occur and claimants would continue to be left significantly under-compensated or over-compensated. In other cases, the court would be forced to order a provisional damages lump sum even though periodical payments were more suitable.
	I understand and recognise that the provisions of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill relating to the recovery of NHS costs will take effect differently to the provisions in the Bill relating to periodical payments. However, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, will understand that different considerations can apply when deciding the most appropriate implementation date for any legislation. For example, the introduction of the recovery of NHS costs in clinical negligence cases is a new cost which insurers and medical defence organisations have not previously had to meet, whereas the limited degree of variation that we propose will not introduce any new liability for damages. It is simply a different, and we believe fairer, method of paying for uncertain future costs.
	There is agreement around the House that where periodical payments can be made it can quite often inure to the advantage of claimants, who will have the security of knowing that the lump sum will not run out. They will have a set amount of money for every month that they live. They will not have to ask horrible prognosis questions about longevity and expected life span. I am sure that noble Lords who have been directly involved in such clinical assessments know how difficult and painful it can be for the claimants involved. They will know also how complex it can be for a competent clinician to make an accurate assessment. Some people have the great advantage enjoyed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who gets riper and richer every year; other people, half his age, struggle—particularly on these Benches. I speak, of course, entirely for myself and not for any of my noble friends.
	We know that there are such difficulties. We believe that periodical payments will assist claimants and will not impact in the negative way feared by the noble Baroness. I hope that she will be satisfied with that answer and feel able to withdraw her amendment. We understand why this issue has caused anxiety. I am pleased to be able to make this response in the hope that it may allay some of the anxieties of clinicians.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed response. I continue to have anxieties, particularly in relation to possible variations that may occur and the possibility of re-opening cases. This may cause anxiety both for those who have been claimants but who have made substantial recoveries and rehabilitated well, and for clinicians who have had claims made against them and the defence unions which bear the cost.
	I should like to read carefully what has been said by the Minister and other noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 153 to 156 not moved.]
	Clause 94 [Power to alter judicial titles: Northern Ireland]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 157:
	Page 50, line 13, leave out "or repealing any enactment (whenever passed)" and insert ", repealing or revoking any enactment"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 158:
	After Clause 96, insert the following new clause—
	"EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CRIMINAL APPEALS TO HOUSE OF LORDS: NORTHERN IRELAND
	(1) Amend paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1978 Act (applications for leave to appeal to House of Lords in certain criminal matters) as follows.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—
	(a) for "fourteen" (in both places) substitute "28", and
	(b) for "date of the decision of that court" substitute "relevant date".
	(3) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—
	"(1A) In subsection (1), "the relevant date" means—
	(a) the date of the decision of the court below, or
	(b) if later, the date on which that court gives reasons for its decision."
	(4) Amend section 32 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47) (applications for leave to appeal to the House of Lords) as follows.
	(5) In subsection (1)—
	(a) for "fourteen" (in both places) substitute "28", and
	(b) for "date of the decision of the Court" substitute "relevant date".
	(6) After subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) In subsection (1), "the relevant date" means—
	(a) the date of the Court of Appeal's decision, or
	(b) if later, the date on which the Court gives reasons for its decision.""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 159:
	After Clause 96, insert the following new clause—
	"FEES: NORTHERN IRELAND
	In section 116 of the 1978 Act (fees) after subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), an order under that subsection may make provision for exemptions from fees and remission of fees (in whole or in part).""

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment will help to facilitate access to justice by allowing for the exemption from, or full or partial remission of, court fees in Northern Ireland.
	The new clause provides for the insertion of a new subsection (1A) into Section 116 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. Section 116(1) of the 1978 Act provides for the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the Treasury, to fix the fees to be taken in the Northern Ireland courts and the Enforcement of Judgments Office.
	The new subsection will allow for any order fixing fees to provide for the exemption from, or full or partial remission of, those fees, thereby taking account of financial hardship. No amendment can be any less controversial than this one. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 97 [Interpretation]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 160:
	Page 52, line 9, at end insert—
	"(8) In this Act "enactment" includes subordinate legislation and, except where otherwise provided, any reference to an enactment is to an enactment whenever passed or made; and "subordinate legislation" here has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30).
	(9) In sections 94(6) and 99(4)(b) "enactment" also includes Northern Ireland legislation (whenever passed or made); and "Northern Ireland legislation" here has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 98 [Rules, regulations and orders]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 161:
	Page 52, line 13, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
	"(2) None of the orders and regulations mentioned in subsection (3) may be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order or regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(3) The orders and regulations are—
	(a) the first order to be made under section 4 (areas of courts boards);
	(b) regulations under section 29(5) (costs in legal proceedings);
	(c) an order under section 31(6) or (8) (power to make permanent provision about collection of fines by fines officers);
	(d) an order under—
	(i) section 68 or 75 (powers to amend enactments in connection with Criminal Procedure Rules and Family Procedure Rules), or
	(ii) section 99 (power to make consequential provision etc.),
	which contains any provision (whether alone or with other provisions) amending or repealing any Act or provision of an Act;
	(e) regulations under Schedule (Constitution and procedure of courts boards)."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, these amendments seek to improve the parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation provided for in the Bill. They are designed to meet parliamentary concerns about the delegated powers in the Bill and fulfil ministerial commitments to bring forward amendments in the light of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform.
	Amendments Nos. 161, 165 and 166 seek to amend Clause 98 to increase the level of parliamentary scrutiny which applies to secondary legislation under the Courts Bill. As a result of these amendments, the first order establishing courts boards under Clause 4, as amended, will be subject to affirmative resolution under subsection 3(a). This is in response to parliamentary concern about these areas and will ensure full scrutiny when we establish areas. Similarly, under subsection (3)(e) regulations under the new schedule on constitution and procedure of courts boards will also be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	Under subsection (3)(d) of the amendment, any orders under Clauses 68, 75 or 99 of the Bill which contain any provision which amends or repeals any Act or provision of any Act will be subject to affirmative resolution.
	These amendments follow the Government's acceptance of the recommendations contained in the second report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform and fulfils the commitments to bring forward amendments which were given by myself and my noble friend Lady Scotland on 11th and 27th March.
	Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 also meet a recommendation of the Select Committee by providing that fees orders under Clause 87 should be subject to negative resolution for the first time. I undertook to bring forward a government amendment when responding to an amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on 27th March.
	There are further minor amendments to clarify the scope of the power to make orders under Clause 99(3). It is likely that we shall need to use the power in this clause to make numerous amendments to subordinate legislation, particularly to change references to justices, chief executives and petty session areas. However, Clause 99 as currently drafted is too restrictive in that it limits the power to subordinate legislation made before the passing of this Bill.
	These government amendments have been grouped with Amendment No. 164. That amendment, brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is the same as Amendment No. 145, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Hunt, and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on 27th March. This amendment would make the first order made under Clause 8 setting up local justice areas subject to the negative resolution procedure. As I think I said during the debate on 27th March, if this amendment has been prompted by concerns that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will radically alter local boundaries when making the first order, the amendment is unnecessary.
	Once again, I reassure noble Lords that the boundaries of local justice areas will be the same as those of petty session areas when the first order under Section 8 is made. Paragraph 29 of the Explanatory Notes makes this clear, and we gave assurances in Committee that we will spell this out in the transitional provisions of the Bill. These provisions are now to be introduced as a government amendment in another place. As noble Lords will know, we have recently tabled over 100 consequential amendments and repeals. It has not therefore been possible at this stage to bring forward the schedule of transitional provisions in this House. I invite noble Lords on the Opposition Benches not to press their amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I must inform your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 because of pre-emption.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am particularly glad about the important concession made by the Government in Amendment No. 166, which brings the question of the court fees under some parliamentary control. Speaking from these Benches, we accept, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did, that the negative resolution is the appropriate procedure because, in the great majority of cases, fees orders are not controversial. However, from time to time they are; there was a fees order some two or three years ago which I would certainly have prayed against if it had been possible to do so. So this gives an opportunity for debate, and I very much welcome it.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, welcome these amendments. But I feel obliged to mention again that the vast number of government amendments, some of them very complicated and far-reaching in detail, will have to be considered further and, if I may dare to say so, even more carefully when we see the Bill reprinted, with all these amendments made. It is not easy, quite frankly, to fathom the net effect of some of these amendments. We really will have to consider the matter afresh and carefully before Third Reading. I hope I am not boring your Lordships when I say yet again that I think that we must have a little more freedom at Third Reading than is normally allowed.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, had been directed at Amendments Nos. 169 to 303, it would have been more relevant. But as far as this amendment is concerned, I think it is perfectly all right. I have been able to follow, in my own inadequate way, whatever has been said, but I am very troubled by circumstances which come later. The Government may have deliberated upon the matter in a very cogent way—I am not entirely sure about that. However, as far as anything we have considered thus far is concerned, I think the Government have been totally okay.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, of course I am grateful to the Minister for saying that eventually the Government will get around to spelling out those transitional provisions as a government amendment. The problem is that "eventually" will be too late for this House.
	Earlier today, my noble friend Lord Hunt made the point that he was not really over-exercised by government amendments arriving late before noble Lords when they are moving in the right direction. This may be moving in the right direction but it will be too late, on this particular occasion, for noble Lords to see what these transitional provisions are.
	I raised the issue of local justice areas in Committee, as the Minister said. It was raised very early on, in the sense that these amendments were published back in January, so the Government have had prior warning. I am delighted that my honourable and right honourable friends in another place will have sight of them, but we will not until they come back as amendments made in another place. I shall welcome the opportunity to see what we can do if there is anything wrong with them, although I am sure that the Government will by then have made sure they are in perfect order.
	I agree with the sentiment of my noble friend Lord Renton that where amendments are made that substantially change a Bill, one has to look very carefully at how one reflects on them at Third Reading while keeping very strictly—as I look to my left at the Clerk of the Parliaments—within the rules of Third Reading to allow for clarification and for holding the Government to their commitment. I undertake that, as ever, I will keep within those bounds. We may need to table one or two amendments that probe a little further what the Government have done on Report without, I am sure, worrying the officials of the House.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to noble Lords who have contributed to this short discussion and for the general thanks. I suppose one can only observe that in bringing these groupings forward in the way we have, noble Lords who are slightly disturbed by the lateness of the process are almost victims of their own success in persuading us of the strength and power of their arguments at an earlier stage in our deliberations. I would not want to over-egg that point, but it is worth making. We are very grateful for the focus that we have had on some of these important issues. I am grateful for all the comments and commitments that have been made and given.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 162 to 164 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 165 to 168:
	Page 52, line 21, at end insert "or".
	Page 52, line 23, leave out from "officers)" to end of line 24.
	Page 53, line 11, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	"(b) amend, repeal or revoke any enactment other than one contained in an Act passed in a Session after that in which this Act is passed."
	Page 53, line 16, leave out subsection (6).
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 169:
	Page 76, line 29, after "omit" insert "—
	(a) "under the hand and seal", and
	(b) "

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is a large group of amendments. I do not think I have ever had the responsibility, awesome as it is, of moving such a large group of amendments before. However, Amendments Nos. 169 to 304 are minor and consequential amendments to the Bill. They contain amendments to and repeals of existing legislation as a consequence of the main clauses of the Bill. There are a total of 72 amendments to Schedule 6 and 42 to Schedule 7.
	The amendments are the result of a policy laid before Parliament during debate of the main clauses. The amendments to Schedules 6 and 7 do not put forward any new policy in their own right but are absolutely vital to allow the clauses to work with, and alongside, existing legislation.
	As the amendments are rather dry, I do not believe that the House would appreciate my explaining them in any detail. Suffice to say that they are minor and consequential, as I said at the outset, arising from among other things the provisions in the Bill removing magistrates' courts committees, the post of justices' chief executive, commission areas and petty session areas. Without these amendments, existing legislation would fail alongside the Courts Bill.
	The changes to long-established jurisdictions, terminology and roles have resulted in amendments to legislation dating back to the beginning of the 18th century. That vast amount of legislation had to be carefully checked and rechecked to ensure that it would operate alongside the clauses in the Bill. The amendments before the House are the consequence of that careful checking. No doubt we shall find things that we should prefer not to find at some stage, but we have done a thorough job. We hope that everything is in place so that the legislation works together with earlier legislation. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I do not believe that I have ever before spoken to a group containing 128 amendments. I have to say that I have no idea whether all these amendments are correct, as I have not investigated all, or indeed any, of them. I am perfectly happy to take them on trust.
	What concerns me is that these are almost all amendments of routine detail, which ought to have been in the Bill when published. They should not have been incorporated into the Bill in Committee, let alone on Report. The problem may be due to excessive pressure on the parliamentary draftsman's office. Whatever the cause, it is an example of something that should not be repeated.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I confess that I have been in Parliament for nearly 58 years. Although I have often at Committee stage been asked, along with Parliament, to consider a mass of amendments to schedules that amend or repeal previous legislation, I do not recollect such a mass of amendments on Report.
	For the sake of the record, I shall say what has happened here. Schedule 6 already contains 253 amendments to legislation since the year 1708, dealing with our judicial system. Schedule 7 already makes 91 repeals of legislation since 1708, but we are now being asked to make a further 92 amendments, which go back to statutes starting in 1773. We are being asked to make 43 further repeals in statutes going back to 1802.
	We want things to be properly done, even at a late stage, but could the Minister—if I may have his attention—give us some reason for this massive, belated collection of amendments to, and repeals of, previous legislation?

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I would not have missed the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for a moment. Of course, he speaks from inordinate experience, although not for one moment do I believe that he goes back to 1708. I do not join him in his comments, but I hope that before Third Reading the Government will give a resume of what these amendments are all about.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I have not understood or even contemplated what the amendments mean. They are just too mind-boggling for that. However, the House is entitled to a proper resume, and we should not be prohibited from discussing the issue on Third Reading. I am sure that the Minister's comments are right, but we are being asked to take this on trust. As a revising Chamber, I do not believe that we should do that.
	I am happy to give way to my noble friend. If he says that, yes, he will do that, I shall shut up and not detain the House any longer. It is vitally important that we understand what we are doing and, frankly, I do not understand the amendments. Would my noble friend like me to give way?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is an invitation I cannot refuse.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as we are at Report stage, is it the case that the Minister will say a quick "Yes" or "No" before I make my speech, or should I make my speech now?

Lord Renton: Make it now.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, after that invitation, I shall make my speech now, to keep to the rules of the Report stage.
	I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who summarised the situation very effectively. He said that we were the "revising Chamber", and we have been put in a position where we are unable to do our work properly.
	The Bill was published at the end of last year, and one would have expected such a huge tranche of amendments to be in the Bill at that stage. In that way, not only we but those interested bodies outwith the House could have had the opportunity properly to consider these matters, as they progressed so slowly through your Lordships' House. We have a bad precedent here for such a large tranche of amendments for repeals coming through at this stage.
	I shall not labour the point further, as other noble Lords have made it extremely well. I have tried to look through some of the amendments—although it was no more than an attempt—and one of them caught my eye. I mentioned it earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, but I am not sure whether he will be able to answer my question tonight. We may need to return to it at Third Reading.
	Amendment No. 178 refers to,
	"Jurisdiction over ships lying off the coasts".
	That caught my eye because of my previous form in putting through your Lordships' House the National Heritage Bill, which was a Private Member's Bill. In the course of that, my noble friend Lady Carnegy made me learn more about territorial waters than I ever thought I would know or want to know.
	Paragraph (a)(i) refers to,
	"any ship or boat which . . . is on or is lying or passing off the coast of England and Wales".
	What does, "lying or passing off the coast of England and Wales", mean? How far out? We are talking about our territorial waters, but I am not sure to what the amendment refers. I am sure that the point is very carefully defined somewhere, but the provision does not give the definition. Moreover, as the amendment has been tabled so late, it is not dealt with in the Explanatory Notes.
	Sub-paragraph (ii) refers to any ship or boat that,
	"is in or near any bay, channel, lake, river or other navigable water on which any part of England and Wales abuts or into which any part of England and Wales projects".
	Bearing in mind my noble friend Lady Carnegy—who is always at the back of my mind—I have to ask, what about the Solway Firth? How will it be affected? Is there any reference in the Act we are amending to the statutory instrument which lays down the various co-ordinates? That is the type of matter about which the Scots get very correctly exercised, because of the matter of oil. The noble Lord may be able to give me a very simple answer now. If not, we may have to have the joy of that at Third Reading.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that this might get more complicated, or at least that your Lordships would find more complications than perhaps there are in reality. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that of course we are happy to provide further information and detail. The usual way of doing that is in correspondence, in a letter placed in the Library and circulated to all noble Lords who have taken part in these discussions.
	If noble Lords look at the amendments in this group, I think they will see that they are, to a degree, self-explanatory. Amendment No. 192, for example, will change and modernise the terminology. I am sure that not all noble Lords will be entirely happy with the changes being made. However, the provision will change terms such as "Crown Court rules".

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. Of course he is at liberty to choose whatever he likes to give an explanation. However, at this stage, I do not think that we ought to do that. He has indicated—and I stress this point—that he is prepared between now and Third Reading to give an explanation of all the amendments. That may be unnecessary in some instances. However, having regard to what he said, I do not think that it would be helpful to the House to give us an explanation of individual amendments at this stage.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was simply trying to be helpful. If the noble Lord believes that I am not being helpful, then I shall happily rest with what I said earlier. We shall provide a general outline of why the amendments are necessary. This is a complex matter and we have tried to simplify it. That is essentially what this whole group of amendments seeks to achieve. If noble Lords look at the provisions, I am sure they will see that we are seeking to modernise and update the language so that there is consistency throughout the legislation. I return to a point I made earlier. In a sense, some of the amendments may well be the result of earlier arguments in which the Government were persuaded to think again. We have had to reflect that in a change.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked me a question about territoriality, I think, and coastal waters. I think that she was referring to changes that are required to the Behring Sea Award Act 1894. The issue of coastal jurisdiction is very complex. Having given it some thought, I suppose that although it is reasonably easy to draw a line in the sand, it is more complicated to draw one in the sea. I should therefore like to provide her with a written explanation containing more detail. I think that there is probably a fairly straightforward and simple explanation. I hope that she is happy with that. I think that she will be more satisfied if I can provide her with a more detailed response.
	I conclude on a simple point. Although this is a large group—several noble Lords say that they have never seen so large a group at this late stage in legislation—we have tried very hard to ensure consistency in the legislation. Sometimes there are limits to what we can get right before introduction. The House has given the Bill primary consideration. In a sense, I think that this process reflects that.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I hope that he recognises that there is considerable disquiet in the House about being asked to approve a whole batch of amendments without proper explanation. I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on this point. Unless the Minister can satisfy us, it may well be that noble Lords will wish to press some of the amendments to a Division. I hope that we can avoid that by an undertaking that detailed explanations of each of the amendments will be supplied and that the Minister will bring them back at Third Reading after the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and other noble Lords have had a chance simply to understand them. Without a proper explanation, it is very difficult for us to approve amendments that we do not understand.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord puts me in a difficult position. By picking out examples, I was attempting to describe the simplicity of what we were trying to achieve in these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, properly made the point that we should have the opportunity to look at the meaning of the amendments. I am more than happy to provide as much detail as we possibly and reasonably can in correspondence. I gave that assurance earlier, and I thought that I had made it as clear as I could. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that. I think that he should be. As I explained, these are minor and consequential amendments. They are updating and modernising language. They are attempting to achieve consistency. I hope that that gives the noble Lord sufficient clarification.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 169) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 58.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 170 to 261:
	Page 77, line 13, at end insert—

"Ordnance Survey Act 1841 (c. 30)

In section 2 (dispute as to damage caused during survey)—
	(a) for "by any two or more justices in petty sessions assembled of the place in which the lands, grounds, heritages, or trees may be situate" substitute "by a magistrates' court", and
	(b) for "the justices, may appeal" substitute "the magistrates' court, may appeal".

Railway Regulation Act 1842 (c. 55)

(1) In section 17 (punishment of persons employed on railways guilty of misconduct)—
	(a) for "before some justice of the peace for the place within which such offence shall be committed" substitute "before a magistrates' court",
	(b) for "such justice as aforesaid (who is hereby authorised and required, upon complaint to him made, without information in writing, to take cognizance thereof, and to act summarily in the premises), in the discretion of such justice," substitute "a magistrates' court,"
	(c) omit ", in the like discretion of such justice, shall",
	(d) for "as such justice shall appoint" substitute "as a magistrates' court shall appoint", and
	(e) omit the words from "and every such penalty" to the end.
	(2) This paragraph extends only to England and Wales.

Defence Act 1842 (c. 94)

(1) In section 24 (compensation for damage caused by temporary buildings), omit "of the county, riding, city, or place".
	(2) This paragraph extends only to England and Wales."
	Page 77, line 15, leave out paragraph 11 and insert—
	"(1) Amend section 24 (proceedings with respect to licences on quitting service) as follows.
	(2) Re-number the existing provision subsection (1).
	(3) In that subsection—
	(a) for "any time not exceeding" substitute "a time which, excluding any day mentioned in subsection (2), does not exceed",
	(b) for "the magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which the said proprietor shall dwell" substitute "a magistrates' court",
	(c) for "at the time of applying" substitute "when applying",
	(d) for "justices' chief executive for such" substitute "designated officer for the",
	(e) for "twenty-four hours, exclusive of Sunday or any day on which the magistrates' court shall not sit," substitute "that time", and
	(f) for "at the same magistrates' court" substitute "to a magistrates' court".
	(4) After that subsection insert—
	"(2) The days are—
	(a) Saturday or Sunday;
	(b) Christmas Day or Good Friday;
	(c) a day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 (c. 80).""
	Page 77, line 21, at end insert—

"Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (c. 16)

11A In section 3 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together in petty sessions".
	11B In section 18 (transmission of shares by other means than transfer to be authenticated by a declaration), for the words from "before a justice" to "and such declaration" substitute "before a justice or a person authorised to administer oaths; and such declaration".
	11C In section 33 (evidence as to forfeiture of shares), for the words from "before any justice" to "that the call" substitute "before any justice or a person authorised to administer oaths, that the call".
	11D Paragraphs 11A to 11C extend only to England and Wales.

Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (c. 18)

11E (1) In section 3 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justices"" to "acting together".
	(2) This paragraph extends only to England and Wales.

Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (c. 20)

11F In section 3 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:".
	11G In section 11 (limiting deviation from datum line described on sections, etc.)—
	(a) for "in petty sessions assembled for that purpose, and acting for the district" substitute "acting in the local justice area", and
	(b) for the words from "every petty sessions" to "holding of such petty sessions" substitute "every hearing before two or more justices to be held for the purpose of obtaining their consent as mentioned above shall, at least 14 days before the hearing".
	11H In section 46 (crossings of roads—level crossings), omit "in petty sessions".
	11I In section 59 (proceedings on application to justices to consent to level crossings over highways other than public carriage roads)—
	(a) for "fourteen days at least previous to the holding of the petty sessions at which such application is intended to be made" substitute "at least 14 days before the application is intended to be made",
	(b) for "acting for the district" substitute "acting in the local justice area", and
	(c) omit ", and assembled in petty sessions,".
	11J Paragraphs 11F to 11I extend only to England and Wales.

Geological Survey Act 1845 (c. 63)

11K In section 1 (dispute as to damage caused during survey), for "by any two or more justices of the peace, in petty sessions assembled, of the place where the lands or trees may be situate" substitute "by a magistrates' court".
	11L In section 6 (interpretation), for "the word "justices" shall include all persons acting in the commission of the peace and" substitute "the words "magistrates' court" shall include".

Markets and Fairs Clauses Act 1847 (c. 14)

11M (1) In section 3 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:".
	(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.

Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 (c. 27)

11N (1) In section 3 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:".
	(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.

Towns Improvement Clauses Act 1847 (c. 34)

11O (1) In section 3 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:".
	(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.

Cemeteries Clauses Act 1847 (c. 65)

11P (1) In section 3 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:".
	(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.

Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (c. 89)

11Q (1) In section 3 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:".
	(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.

Hares Act 1848 (c. 29)

11R In section 2 (registration of authorisation)—
	(a) for "clerk of the magistrates acting for the petty sessions area" substitute "designated officer for the local justice area", and
	(b) for "clerk of the magistrates as" substitute "designated officer as".

Indictable Offences Act 1848 (c. 42)

11S In section 13 (English warrants may be backed in the Isles of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney or Sark, and vice versa)—
	(a) omit "any county, riding, division, liberty, city, borough, or place in" (in both places),
	(b) for "and for the county or place into which such person shall escape or go, or where he shall reside or be, or be supposed or suspected to be," substitute "England and Wales",
	(c) for "indorsing the same has jurisdiction" substitute "indorsing the same is acting or has jurisdiction",
	(d) for "issued such warrant or process shall have jurisdiction" substitute "issued such warrant or process is acting or has jurisdiction", and
	(e) for "had been apprehended within his jurisdiction" substitute "had been apprehended in England or Wales or (as the case may be) within his jurisdiction"."
	Page 77, line 24, at end insert—

"Inclosure Act 1859 (c. 43)

12A In section 4 (how damage to be assessed), for "for the county or riding or other division or place within which" substitute "acting in the local justice area in which".
	12B In section 6 (justices' warrant for distress), for "of such county or riding, or other district or place as aforesaid, shall, by warrant under their hands and seals," substitute "acting in the local justice area shall by warrant".

Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860 (c. 32)

12C In section 2 (offence of making a disturbance in churches, chapels, churchyards etc.)—
	(a) for "before two justices of the peace" substitute "by a magistrates' court",
	(b) for "a penalty of not more than" substitute "a fine not exceeding", and
	(c) for "for every such offence, or may, if the justices before whom he shall be convicted think fit, instead of being subjected to any pecuniary penalty, be committed to prison for any time" substitute "or to imprisonment for a term".
	12D In section 3 (power to arrest offenders and take them before a justice of the peace), for "justice of the peace of the county or place where the said offence shall have been so committed," substitute "magistrates' court".
	12E Paragraphs 12C and 12D do not extend to Northern Ireland.

Defence Act 1860 (c. 112)

12F (1) In section 47 (interpretation), omit the words from "The word "justices"" to "acting together:".
	(2) This paragraph extends only to England and Wales.

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100)

12G In section 44 (if magistrates dismiss case of assault or battery, they must make out certificate to that effect), omit "under their hands".
	12H In section 65 (justices may issue search warrants for explosive substances)—
	(a) for "Any justice of the peace of any county or place in which" substitute "Where",
	(b) after "in this Act mentioned," insert "a justice of the peace,", and
	(c) omit "under his hand and seal".
	12I Paragraphs 12G and 12H do not extend to Northern Ireland.

Poaching Prevention Act 1862 (c. 114)

(1) In section 1 (interpretation), omit from "; and the words "justice" and "justices"" onwards.
	(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.
	In section 2 (summons to appear before justice of the peace)—
	(a) after "citing such person to appear before" insert ", in England and Wales, a magistrates' court or",
	(b) omit "England and", and
	(c) for "forfeit and pay any sum" substitute "be liable to a fine".
	In section 3 (recovery of penalties), omit "in England in the same manner as penalties under the Game Act 1831 and"."
	Page 77, line 27, at end insert—

"Dockyard Ports Regulation Act 1865 (c. 125)

(1) In section 2 (interpretation), omit the words from "The term "justice"" to "arises:".
	(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.
	(1) In section 22 (jurisdiction of justice of the peace), for "Where any district" substitute—
	"(1) For the purposes of this Act, where a local justice area in England and Wales abuts on the shore of the sea or other navigable water, any magistrates' court in England and Wales has jurisdiction over—
	(a) any vessel which is near or passes near the shore, and
	(b) every person on board the vessel or belonging to it,
	as if the vessel or person were in England and Wales.
	(2) Where any other district".
	Newspapers, Printers and Reading Rooms Repeal Act 1869 (c. 24)
	In Schedule 2 (which sets out enactments continued in force under section 1)—
	(a) in section 29 of the Unlawful Societies Act 1799 (penalty for neglecting or refusing to produce copy), for "forfeit and lose the sum" substitute "be liable on summary conviction to a fine",
	(b) in section 34 of the 1799 Act (prosecutions to be commenced within 3 months), omit "or sued" and ", or such action shall be brought,",
	(c) omit section 35 of the 1799 Act (recovery of penalties),
	(d) omit section 36 of the 1799 Act (application of penalties), and
	(e) in section 2 of the Printers and Publishers Act 1839 (penalty upon printers for not printing their name, etc.), for "forfeit a sum not more than" substitute "be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding"."
	Page 77, line 27, at end insert—

"Promissory Oaths Act 1871 (c. 48)

In section 2 (persons before whom oaths to be taken), for the paragraph beginning "In England" substitute—
	"In England and Wales—
	(a) before the Lord Chancellor, or
	(b) in open court before one or more judges of the High Court or before one or more Circuit judges.""
	Page 77, line 31, at end insert—

"Fairs Act 1873 (c. 37)

The amendments of section 6 (alteration of fair day on representation of local authority) made by—
	(a) paragraph 10 of Schedule 10 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 (c. 22), and
	(b) paragraph 5 of Schedule 13 to that Act,
	shall be treated as if they had never had effect."
	Page 78, line 4, at end insert—

"Explosive Substances Act 1883 (c. 3)

(1) In section 6(1) (inquiry into offences)—
	(a) omit "for the county, borough, or place in which the crime was committed or is suspected to have been committed,",
	(b) omit "sit at a petty sessional or occasional court-house, or police station in the said county, borough or place, and", and
	(c) for "the next petty sessions, or" substitute "a magistrates' court".
	(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.
	In section 9(2) (application of Act to Scotland), for ""petty sessional court house"" substitute ""magistrates' court""."
	Page 78, line 39, at end insert—

"Behring Sea Award Act 1894 (c. 2)

The Behring Sea Award Act 1894 shall have effect in relation to England and Wales as if in Schedule 2 for section 521 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854 (which under section 1(5) of the 1894 Act is applied to any offence or forfeiture under that Act) there were substituted—
	"521 JURISDICTION OVER SHIPS LYING OFF THE COASTS
	Courts in England and Wales (including magistrates' courts) have jurisdiction—
	(a) over any ship or boat which—
	(i) is on or is lying or passing off the coast of England and Wales, or
	(ii) is in or near any bay, channel, lake, river or other navigable water on which any part of England and Wales abuts or into which any part of England and Wales projects, and
	(b) over all persons on board the ship or boat or for the time being belonging to it,
	as if the ship, boat or persons were in England and Wales.""
	Page 79, line 4, at end insert—

"Indictments Act 1915 (c. 90)

In section 2(2) (powers of rule committee), for the words preceding "shall have power" substitute "The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee"."
	Page 79, line 21, at end insert—
	"(1) In section 7(2) (power to make rules about proceedings under the Act), for the words from "Without prejudice" to "such rules" substitute "For the purpose of giving effect to this Act rules of court".
	(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not extend to Northern Ireland.

Criminal Justice Act 1925 (c. 86)

In section 33(4) (rules about service of documents on a corporation), omit ", except in so far as such provision may be made by rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980"."
	Page 79, line 25, at end insert—
	"(1) Amend section 25 (restrictions on persons under 18 going abroad to perform for profit) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (6), for "court of summary jurisdiction" substitute "relevant court".
	(3) After subsection (10), insert—
	"(11) In this section "the relevant court"—
	(a) in relation to England and Wales, means a magistrates' court;
	(b) in relation to Scotland, means a sheriff court;
	(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, means a court of summary jurisdiction.""
	Page 79, line 36, at end insert—

"Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (c. 13)

(1) In section 3(1) (power to make rules of court for purposes of Act), for "rules of court under section 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1981" substitute "Civil Procedure Rules".
	(2) Sub-paragraph (1) extends to England and Wales only.

Public Offices (Site) Act 1947 (c. 45)

Omit section 7 (correction of errors in deposited plan and book of reference).

The National Assistance Act 1948 (c. 29)

In section 43(4) (interpretation of section 43), for the words from "a court" onwards substitute "—
	(a) in England and Wales, a magistrates' court acting in the local justice area where the assistance was given or applied for;
	(b) in Scotland, the sheriff having jurisdiction in the place where the assistance was given or applied for."
	(1) Amend section 47 (removal to suitable premises of persons in need of care and attention) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2), for "a court of summary jurisdiction having jurisdiction in the place where the premises are situated" substitute "the court".
	(3) After subsection (12) insert—
	"(12A) In this section, "the court"—
	(a) in England and Wales, means a magistrates' court acting in the local justice area where the premises are situated;
	(b) in Scotland, means the sheriff having jurisdiction in the place where the premises are situated."
	Omit section 65(c) (in application of Act to Scotland, references to court of summary jurisdiction to be read as references to sheriff).
	Criminal Justice Act 1948 (c. 58)
	For section 37(4) (recommittal following appeal etc.) substitute—
	"(4) Criminal Procedure Rules may be made for authorising the recommittal, in such cases and by such courts or justices as may be prescribed by the rules, of persons released from custody under this section.""
	Page 80, line 10, at end insert—
	"In section 17(1)(a) (registration of maintenance orders in England), for "for the same place" substitute "acting in the same local justice area"."
	Page 80, line 32, at end insert—
	"(1) Amend section 25 (rules as to procedure of magistrates' courts) as follows.
	(2) Omit subsection (1).
	(3) In subsection (3)—
	(a) after "Rules" insert "of court", and
	(b) in paragraph (a), for the words from "by means of" onwards, substitute "in accordance with the rules".
	(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not extend to Northern Ireland.
	(1) Amend section 28(1) (interpretation) as follows.
	(2) In the definition of "collecting officer", after "officer"," insert "in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England, means the designated officer for the court, and".
	(3) In the definition of "prescribed", omit—
	(a) "England or",
	(b) "by rules made under section fifteen of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, or", and
	(c) "as the case may be,"."
	Page 81, line 25, after "executive for" insert "the magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area"
	Page 81, line 26, after "officer for" insert "the magistrates' court acting in the local justice area"
	Page 82, line 15, leave out paragraph 47 and insert—
	"(1) Amend section 18 (powers of magistrates to renew commitals) as follows.
	(2) For "justices' chief executive for" (in each place) substitute "designated officer for".
	(3) In subsections (2) and (4), for "acting for the same petty sessions area" substitute "acting in the same local justice area"."
	Page 82, line 22, at end insert—
	"In section 21(1) (interpretation), omit the definition of "rules of court".

Manoeuvres Act 1958 (7 & 8 Eliz. 2 c. 7)

(1) Amend section 3 (power to close highways) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), omit "sitting in petty sessions in the petty sessions area within which that highway or part of a highway is situated".
	(3) In subsection (2), omit ", being a highway or part within the jurisdiction of those justices".
	(4) For subsection (5)(c) substitute—
	"(c) the references to justices of the peace shall be construed as references to the district court for the area in which the highway or part of a highway is situated."

Obscene Publications Act 1959 (c. 66)

(1) Amend section 3 (powers of search, seizure and forfeiture) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), omit "in the petty sessions area for which he acts," and "in that area".
	(3) In subsection (3)—
	(a) for "for the same petty sessions area as the justice who issued the warrant, and the justice before whom the articles are brought" substitute "in the local justice area in which the articles were seized, who";
	(b) for "for that petty sessions area" substitute "acting in that local justice area".

Road Traffic Act 1960 (c. 16)

In section 243(a) (proof in summary proceedings of identity of driver), for "rules made under section fifteen of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"."
	Page 82, line 31, at end insert—

"Administration of Justice Act 1960 (c. 65)

In section 2(3) (power to extend time for applying for leave to appeal to House of Lords), omit "Except in a case involving sentence of death,".
	Omit section 3 (special provision as to capital cases)."
	Page 82, line 42, at end insert—
	"(1) Amend Schedule 1 (bookmaker's permits, betting agency permits and betting office licences) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 1(a)—
	(a) for "petty sessions" substitute "local justice", and
	(b) for "acting for" substitute "acting in".
	(3) In paragraph 2—
	(a) in the definition of "appropriate authority", for "petty sessions" substitute "local justice", and
	(b) in paragraph (a) of the definition of "the proper officer of the appropriate authority", for "chief executive to" substitute "designated officer for".
	(4) In paragraph 20A(5), for the words from "for a petty" onwards substitute "in a local justice area, is a justices' clerk designated by the Lord Chancellor in relation to the committee"."
	Page 83, line 8, at end insert—
	"In section 26 (Inner and Middle Temples), omit "commissions of the peace,".

Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 (c. 45)

In section 1(1) (endorsement of warrants issued in Republic of Ireland)—
	(a) in paragraph (b) after "within the area" insert "in or", and
	(b) for "comprising the area for" substitute "which consists of or includes the area in or for".
	In section 4(1) (issue of provisional warrant), in paragraph (c), after "within the area" insert "in or".
	In section 6(2) (discharge of persons where police of Republic no longer require his delivery into their custody), after "justice of the peace acting" insert "in or".
	In section 8(1) (rules of court) for paragraph (a) substitute—
	"(a) in England and Wales, Criminal Procedure Rules;".
	(1) Amend the Schedule (supplementary provisions as to proceedings under section 2) as follows.
	(2) For paragraphs 2 and 2A substitute—
	"2 The court shall sit in open court and shall consist of—
	(a) at least two justices, or
	(b) a District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)."
	(3) In paragraph 3, for "paragraphs 2 and 2A" substitute "paragraph 2".

Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (c. 56)

Omit section 1(5) (jurisdiction of justices of the peace)."
	Page 83, line 12, at end insert—

"Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 (c. 69)

In each of the following provisions, for "Crown Court rules", in each place it occurs, substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"—
	(a) section 2(7), (8) and (9) (issue of witness summons on application to Crown Court),
	(b) section 2B(2) and (3) (summons no longer needed),
	(c) section 2C(2), (3), (5), (6) and (7) (application to make section 2 summons ineffective), and
	(d) section 2E(3) and (4) (application to make section 2D summons ineffective)."
	Page 83, line 20, leave out "31A" and insert "31C"
	Page 83, line 27, at end insert—

"Gaming Act 1968 (c. 65)

(1) Amend Schedule 2 (court order cancelling licence) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 1(1)(a), for "petty sessions" substitute "local justice".
	(3) In paragraph 2(1), for "petty sessions" substitute "local justice".
	(4) In paragraph 48(5), for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer".
	(1) Amend Schedule 3 (registration of members' clubs in England and Wales) as follows.
	(2) In—
	(a) paragraph 12(1) (in both places),
	(b) paragraph 13(1),
	(c) paragraph 15(1) (in both places),
	(d) paragraph 16(1),
	(e) paragraph 17(3) (in both places),
	(f) paragraph 23, and
	(g) paragraph 24(1) and (2),
	for "chief executive to" substitute "designated officer for".
	(3) In paragraph 17(4), for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer".
	In Schedule 7 (registration for gaming by means of machines), in—
	(a) paragraphs 3(1) and 4(1),
	(b) paragraph 11(1) (in both places),
	(c) paragraph 11(2),
	(d) paragraphs 13(1) and 14,
	(e) paragraph 20(1) (in both places), and
	(f) paragraphs 24 and 25(1) and (2),
	for "chief executive to" substitute "designated officer for"."
	Page 83, line 28, at end insert—
	"In section 23AA (electronic monitoring of conditions of remand), in each of subsections (4)(a) and (9), for "petty sessions area" substitute "local justice area"."
	Page 83, line 35, at end insert—

"Administration of Justice Act 1970 (c. 31)

In section 41(5) (enforcement of orders for payment of costs and compensation made before the appointed day), for "the magistrates' court for the petty sessions area" substitute "a magistrates' court acting in the local justice area"."
	Page 84, line 5, at end insert—
	"In section 52(3) (award of costs where information or complaint is not proceeded with)—
	(a) in paragraph (b), for "acting for any area" substitute "acting in any local justice area", and
	(b) for "for that area" substitute "acting in that area"."
	Page 84, line 20, at end insert—
	"In section 25(1) (interpretation), omit the definition of "rules of court" and "and" before it."
	Page 84, line 23, at end insert—

"Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)

In section 25D(6)(a) (court to which application may be made following detention of ships, aircraft and vehicles), for sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) substitute—
	"(ia) if the arrested person has not been charged, or he has been charged but proceedings for the offence have not begun to be heard, a magistrates' court;".
	(1) Amend section 28K (execution of search warrants issued to immigration officers) as follows.
	(2) For subsection (9)(a), substitute—
	"(a) if issued by a justice of the peace in England and Wales, to the designated officer for the local justice area in which the justice was acting when he issued the warrant;".
	(3) In subsection (10), for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer".
	(1) Amend Schedule 2 (administrative provisions about control on entry) as follows.
	(2) In paragraphs 23(1A)(a) and 31(3A)(a), for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer".
	(3) In paragraphs 23(3) and 31(4), for "purposes of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 and, in particular section 60 of that Act, as being" substitute "purposes of section 33 of the Courts Act 2003 (application of receipts of designated officers) as being".
	(4) In paragraphs 24(2)(a) and 33(2)(a), after "hours, before" insert "in England and Wales, a justice of the peace, in Northern Ireland,".
	(1) Amend Schedule 3 (supplementary provisions about deportation) as follows.
	(2) After paragraph 6(2) insert—
	"(2A) Where the Crown Court directed release, the appropriate court is that court or a magistrates' court."
	(3) In paragraph 6(3), omit "the Crown Court or" and "commission area or".
	(4) In paragraph 8(1)—
	(a) for "England or Wales or" substitute "England or Wales in pursuance of paragraph 7 above shall be brought as soon as practicable and in any event within twenty-four hours after his arrest before a justice of the peace in England or Wales, and a person arrested in";
	(b) omit "area or"."
	Page 85, line 11, at end insert—
	"(1) Amend section 18 (provision that may be made by magistrates' courts rules) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) for the words preceding paragraph (a) substitute "Rules of court may make provision with respect to—";
	(b) in paragraph (a), for "for a particular petty sessions area" substitute "in a particular local justice area", and for "for such other petty sessions area" substitute "in such other local justice area".
	(3) In subsection (1A), for "rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "rules of court".
	In section 21(1) (interpretation of Part 1), in the definition of "prescribed", omit—
	(a) "in England and Wales or",
	(b) "by rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 or", and
	(c) "as the case may be,"."
	Page 86, line 19, at end insert—

"Civil Evidence Act 1972 (c. 30)

Omit section 2(8) (power to make rules of court under section 2 is without prejudice to other such powers)."
	Page 86, line 24, at end insert—

"Administration of Justice Act 1973 (c. 15)

In section 5 (consequential) omit "Paragraph 7 of".
	In Schedule 1 (justices of the peace: consequential re-enactments and amendments), omit paragraphs 7 to 7B and 10(1)."
	Page 86, line 25, at end insert—
	"In section 35(3) (jurisdiction to hear application for alteration of maintenance agreement), for "at least one of the parties is resident within the commission area for which the court is appointed" substitute "the court acts in, or is authorised by the Lord Chancellor to act for, a local justice area in which at least one of the parties is resident"."
	Page 86, line 37, at end insert—
	"In—
	(a) section 9(3) (appeal against refusal to excuse from jury service), and
	(b) section 9A(3) (appeal against refusal to defer jury service),
	for "Crown Court rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules".
	In section 14 (views by jurors), for "Crown Court rules, and rules of court for civil cases," substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules and Civil Procedure Rules"."
	Page 86, line 39, at end insert—

"Friendly Societies Act 1974 (c. 46)

For section 102 (jurisdiction of magistrates' courts) substitute—
	"102 JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS IN NORTHERN IRELAND
	(1) In Northern Ireland, a registered society or branch or any officer thereof may be prosecuted for any summary offence under this Act before a magistrates' court acting for the county court division in which the registered office of the society or branch is situated.
	(2) Subsection (1) is without prejudice to the provisions of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 as to the jurisdiction of a magistrates' court.""
	Page 87, line 12, at end insert—

"Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 (c. 34)

In section 7 (rules of court)—
	(a) for the words from "The power" to "1981 or" substitute "Civil Procedure Rules or rules of court under", and
	(b) for "shall include power to make rules of court under" substitute "may make provision"."
	Page 87, line 20, leave out paragraph 89 and insert—
	"In section 2 (definitions), omit the definitions of "Crown Court rules", "magistrates' courts rules" and "Supreme Court rules".
	In section 3AA (electronic monitoring of compliance with bail conditions), in each of subsections (4)(a) and 12, for "petty sessions area" substitute "local justice area".
	In section 5(10) (meaning of "prescribed" in section 5), for "Supreme Court rules, Courts-Martial Appeal rules, Crown Court rules or magistrates' courts rules" substitute "Civil Procedure Rules, Courts-Martial Appeal rules or Criminal Procedure Rules".
	(1) Amend section 5B (reconsideration of decisions granting bail) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (8), omit "for the petty sessions area in which he was arrested".
	(3) In subsection (9), for "Magistrates' court rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"."
	Page 87, line 27, leave out paragraph 92 and insert—
	"(1) Amend section 8 (bail with sureties) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (4)—
	(a) in paragraph (a), for "magistrates' courts rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules",
	(b) in paragraph (b), for "Crown Court rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules",
	(c) in paragraph (c), for "Supreme Court rules" substitute "Civil Procedure Rules or Criminal Procedure Rules", and
	(d) for "Supreme Court rules, Crown Court rules, Courts-Martial Appeal rules or magistrates' courts rules" substitute "Civil Procedure Rules, Criminal Procedure Rules or Courts-Martial Appeal rules".
	(3) In subsection (5)(b), omit "for the petty sessions area in which he resides"."
	Page 87, line 35, at end insert—

"Administration of Justice Act 1977 (c. 38)

Omit section 22 (membership of rule committees)."
	Page 88, line 20, leave out "1959" and insert "1984"
	Page 88, line 23, at end insert—
	"In section 48(1) (power to make rules as to furnishing of information by prosecutor in criminal proceedings), for the words from "The power" to "include power to" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules may"."
	Page 88, line 24, at end insert—
	"In section 6(9) (restrictions on power to make order where respondent not present at hearing), for "rules" substitute "rules of court"."
	Page 88, line 32, at end insert—
	"( ) In subsection (10), for "the clerk to the justices" substitute "a justices' clerk"."
	Page 88, line 35, leave out paragraph 97 and insert—
	"In section 30(1) (jurisdiction to hear application for order under Part 1 of the Act)—
	(a) for "a magistrates' courts committee" substitute "the Lord Chancellor", and
	(b) for the words from "at the" onwards substitute "it acts in, or is authorised by the Lord Chancellor to act for, a local justice area in which either the applicant or the respondent ordinarily resides at the date of the making of the application".
	(1) Amend section 32 (enforcement of orders for payment of money) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2), for "a justices' chief executive" substitute "the designated officer for a magistrates' court".
	(3) In subsection (6), for "rules" substitute "rules of court"."
	Page 89, line 4, leave out paragraph 99 and insert—
	"(1) Amend section 88 (interpretation) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), omit the definition of "rules".
	(3) In subsection (4), for "for the same petty sessions" substitute "in the same local justice".

Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c. 23)

(1) Amend Schedule 1 (appeals to House of Lords in certain criminal matters) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 1(2), omit "Except in a case involving sentence of death,".
	(3) Omit paragraph 2.

Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37)

(1) Amend section 4 (entry, search and seizure) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), omit "in the petty sessions area for which he acts".
	(3) In subsection (3), for "for the same petty sessions area as the justice who issued the warrant" substitute "in the local justice area in which the articles were seized".
	In section 5(1) (forfeiture of seized articles), for "for that petty sessions area" substitute "acting in that local justice area".

Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980 (c. 32)

In section 4 (supplemental), in subsection (4)(a), for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer"."
	Page 89, line 26, at end insert—
	"In section 43(2) (enforcement of recognizance of a surety for person granted bail), for "for the petty sessions" substitute "acting in the local justice".
	In section 47 (service of summons out of time after failure to prove service by post) for "the rules" (in the first place where it occurs) substitute "rules of court"."
	Page 90, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 and insert—
	"(1) Amend section 59B(5) (interpretation of provisions relating to penalty for failing to comply with maintenance order) as follows.
	(2) For the definition of "the relevant court" substitute—
	""the relevant court", in relation to an order, means—
	(a) in a case where payments under the order are required to be made to or through the designated officer for a magistrates' court, that magistrates' court;
	(b) in a case where such payments are required to be made by any method of payment falling within section 59(6) and the order was made by a magistrates' court, that magistrates' court; and
	(c) in a case where such payments are required to be made by any method of payment falling within section 59(6) and the order was not made by a magistrates' court, the magistrates' court in which the order is registered;".
	(3) In the definition of "relevant justice" for "for the petty sessions area for" substitute "acting in the local justice area in".
	(1) Amend section 60 (revocation, variation, etc. of orders for periodical payment) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (4), omit "the clerk of".
	(3) In subsection (5)—
	(a) for "the clerk" substitute "a justices' clerk", and
	(b) for "to the justices' chief executive for the court" substitute "to the designated officer for the court".
	(4) In subsection (10), for "the clerk of the court" substitute "a justices' clerk".
	(1) In section 61(1) (periodical payments payable by one person under more than one order) for "The power to make rules conferred by section 144 below shall, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of that section, include power to" substitute "Rules of court may".
	(2) In paragraph (b) of section 61(1)—"
	Page 90, line 44, at end insert—
	"(1) Amend section 65(1) (proceedings which are family proceedings for purposes of Act) as follows.
	(2) After the paragraph (n) inserted by paragraph 8(a) of Schedule 11 to the Children Act 1989 (c. 41), insert—
	"(na) section 30 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (c. 37);".
	(3) Renumber the paragraph (n) inserted by paragraph 60 of Schedule 2 to the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1992 (c. 6) as paragraph (nb)." Page 90, line 47, at end insert—
	"(1) Amend section 70 (jurisdiction of magistrates' courts in inner London for family proceedings) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) for "for an inner London petty sessions" substitute "acting in an inner London local justice",
	(b) for "for that" substitute "acting in that",
	(c) for "for any" substitute "acting in any", and
	(d) for "magistrates' courts committee whose area consists of or includes that petty sessions area" substitute "Lord Chancellor".
	(3) In subsection (2)—
	(a) for "for an inner London petty sessions" substitute "acting in an inner London local justice", and
	(b) for "magistrates' courts committee whose area consists of or includes that petty sessions area so determine" substitute "Lord Chancellor so determines".
	(4) In subsection (3), in the definition of "inner London petty sessions area", for ""inner London petty sessions area" means any petty sessions" substitute ""inner London local justice area" means any local justice".
	In section 74(1) (reasons for decisions in family proceedings) for "The power to make rules conferred by section 144 below shall, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of that section, include power to" substitute "Rules of court may"." Page 91, line 7, at end insert—
	"In—
	(a) section 78(4) (offence of removing impounded goods marked in accordance with rules), and
	(b) section 79(2) (reduction of period of detention on payment being made in accordance with rules),
	for "the rules" substitute "rules of court"." Page 91, line 10, at end insert—
	"In section 84(1) (power to require statement of means) for "for the same petty sessions" substitute "in the same local justice"." Page 91, line 22, leave out paragraph 115 and insert—
	"(1) Amend section 89 (transfer of fine order) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) after "Where a magistrates' court" insert "in a local justice area",
	(b) for "in any petty sessions area other than that for which the court acted" substitute "in England and Wales", and
	(c) for "the petty sessions area in which it appears to the court that he is residing;" substitute "another local justice area".
	(3) In subsection (2)—
	(a) for "justices' chief executive for" (in both places) substitute "designated officer for", and
	(b) for "for the petty sessions area" substitute "in the local justice area".
	(4) For subsection (3) substitute—
	"(3) A court by which functions in relation to any sum are for the time being exercisable by virtue of a transfer of fine order may make a further transfer of fine order with respect to that sum."" Page 91, line 26, leave out paragraph 117 and insert—
	"(1) Amend section 91 (transfer of fines from Scotland and Northern Ireland) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) for "in a specified petty sessions area in England and Wales, a magistrates' court acting for that area," substitute "by a magistrates' court in England and Wales, a magistrates' court acting in the area in which the person subject to the order resides,", and
	(b) for "justices' chief executive for" substitute "designated officer for".
	(3) In subsection (3)—
	(a) for "in a petty sessions area" substitute "by a magistrates' court", and
	(b) for "acting for that area" substitute "acting in the area in which the person subject to the order resides".
	In section 93(5) (issue of warrant to arrest person defaulting on maintenance order) for "for the same petty sessions" substitute "in the same local justice"." Page 92, line 4, at end insert—
	"In section 107 (false statements in declaration proving service) for "the rules" substitute "rules of court".
	In section 109(2) (notice to abandon an appeal), for "Crown Court rules" substitute "rules of court"." Page 92, line 5, after "stated)" insert "—
	(a) for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' clerk", and
	(b) " Page 92, line 24, at end insert—
	"In section 125(1) (warrants) for "the rules" substitute "rules of court"." Page 93, line 9, at end insert—
	"In section 126 (execution of certain warrants outside England and Wales)—
	(a) for "Sections 12 to 14" substitute "Section 13(1) and (2)", and
	(b) in paragraph (a), for "those referred to in the said sections 12 to 14" substitute "indictable offences"." Page 93, line 15, at end insert—
	"Omit section 141 (clerks to justices)." Page 93, line 17, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
	"(2) In subsection (1) after "prescribing" insert "except in relation to—
	(a) any criminal cause or matter, or
	(b) family proceedings,",
	and for "and justices' chief executives" substitute "and designated officers for magistrates' courts"." Page 93, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert "Court, the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate)".
	(4) In subsection (3), before paragraph (a) insert—
	"(za) one District Judge (Magistrates' Courts);".
	(5) Omit subsection (5).
	(1) Amend section 145 (rules: supplementary provisions) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), omit paragraphs (aa), (f) and (i).
	(3) Omit subsection (4)." Page 93, line 29, leave out paragraph 134 and insert—
	"134 (1) Amend section 150(1) (interpretation) as follows.
	(2) Omit the definitions of "petty-sessional court-house", "the register" and "the rules".
	(3) In the definition of "prescribed" for "the rules" substitute "rules of court".
	134A In section 152 for "the rules" substitute "rules of court"." Page 93, line 31, at end insert—
	"In section 155(4) (extent of section 126 of 1980 Act) for "sections" substitute "section"." Page 93, line 32, at end insert—

"Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47)

Omit—
	(a) section 48 (appeal in capital cases), and
	(b) Schedule 3 (procedural and other modifications for capital cases)." Page 93, line 34, leave out paragraph 137 and insert—
	"(1) Amend section 47 (power of magistrates' court to declare that an unnecessary highway is not maintainable at public expense) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (5), for "acting for the petty sessions for" substitute "assigned to the local justice area in".
	(3) In subsection (6), for "chief executive to" substitute "designated officer for".
	(1) Amend section 116 (power of magistrates' court to authorise stopping up or diversion of highway) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (8)(b), for "for the same petty sessions" substitute "in the same local justice".
	(3) In subsection (9), for "the clerk of the court" substitute "a justices' clerk"." Page 93, line 38, leave out "18(1)(a)" and insert "18(1)"
	Page 94, line 11, leave out "", 31ZA"" and insert "", 31B, 31C""
	Page 94, line 26, at end insert—

"Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 (c. 63)

In paragraph 15(4A) of Schedule 1 (betting duties: notification of forfeiture and cancellation of betting office licence), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "proper officer of the court", for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer".
	In paragraph 15(3)(a) of Schedule 4 (gaming machine licence duty: registers of permits), for "for a petty sessions area, the chief executive to the justices" substitute "in a local justice area, the designated officer for the committee"." Page 94, line 38, at end insert—

"Administration of Justice Act 1982 (c. 53)

In section 23(6)(a) (fees for deposit of wills), for "section 130 of the Supreme Court Act 1981" substitute "section 87 of the Courts Act 2003."" Page 97, line 21, at end insert—
	"In section 81(1) and (2) (advance notice of expert evidence in Crown Court), for "Crown Court Rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"." Page 97, line 29, at end insert—
	"( ) Omit subsection (5)." Page 97, line 37, leave out paragraph 166 and insert—
	"(1) Amend section 23 (discontinuance of proceedings in magistrates' courts) as follows.
	(2) In subsections (3), (7) and (8), for "justices' chief executive for" substitute "designated officer for".
	(3) In subsection (10), for "rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"." Page 101, line 24, at end insert—
	"In section 7(3) (rules as to service of documents), for "Rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"." Page 101, line 32, at end insert—
	"In section 13(5)(a) (return to foreign states - supplementary), for "rules under section 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1981" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules".
	In section 14(2) (simplified procedure)—
	(a) for "rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules", and
	(b) for the words from "without" to "include power to" substitute "those rules may"." Page 101, line 41, at end insert—
	"( ) In paragraph 9(2), for "rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"." Page 102, line 3, at end insert—
	"(1) In paragraph 5 of Schedule 1A (adaptation of Act where 1995 Convention applies), amend inserted section 14A as follows.
	(2) In subsection (4), for "rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules".
	(3) In subsection (5)—
	(a) for the words from "Without" to "includes power to" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules may", and
	(b) for "a Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) or another District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) designated by him" substitute "a District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) designated by the Lord Chancellor"." Page 102, line 5, leave out paragraph 203 and insert—
	(1) Amend section 7 (disqualification for membership of scheme) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (7)(b), for "justices' chief executive for" substitute "designated officer for".
	(3) In subsection (10), omit paragraph (c) and the word "and" preceding it." Page 102, line 11, leave out paragraph 205 and insert—
	"(1) Amend section 18 (information) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), for "justices' chief executive for" substitute "designated officer for".
	(3) In subsection (2), for "clerk of" substitute "designated officer for".
	(4) Omit subsection (4)." Page 102, line 22, at end insert—
	"(1) Amend section 97 (privacy for children involved in certain proceedings) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), for "Rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Family Procedure Rules".
	(3) Omit subsection (7)(a).
	(1) Amend paragraph 6A of Schedule 1 (variation of orders for periodical payments etc. made by magistrates' courts) as follows.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (2), for "the clerk to the justices for the petty sessions area for which the court is acting" substitute "a magistrates' court acting in the same local justice area as the court which made the order".
	(3) In sub-paragraph (3)—
	(a) for "the clerk" substitute "a justices' clerk", and
	(b) for "to the justices' chief executive for the court" substitute "to the designated officer for the court".
	(4) In sub-paragraph (9), for "the clerk to the justices" substitute "a justices' clerk".
	In paragraph 10(6) of Schedule 1 (jurisdiction to hear application for alteration of maintenance agreement), for "at least one of the parties is resident in the commission area for which the court is appointed" substitute "the court acts in, or is authorised by the Lord Chancellor to act for, a local justice area in which at least one of the parties is resident"." Page 103, line 12, at end insert—
	"In section 10(2) (family proceedings in magistrates' courts), for "Rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Family Procedure Rules"." Page 103, leave out lines 29 to 34 and insert—
	"(a) in subsections (5)(c) and (9), for "the clerk to the justices for the petty sessions area for which the court is acting" substitute "a justices' clerk",
	(b) in subsections (5) and (11), for "to the justices' chief executive for the court" substitute "to the designated officer for the court", and
	(c) in subsection (15), for the definition of "court" substitute—
	""court" (where it occurs other than in the expression "magistrates' court") means in England and Wales a magistrates' court, and in Scotland the sheriff;".
	In section 121(1) (unpaid contributions - supplementary)—
	(a) in paragraph (a), for "rules under section 144 of that Act" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules", and
	(b) in paragraph (b), for "justices' chief executive for" substitute "designated officer for"." Page 103, line 36, at end insert—

"Friendly Societies Act 1992 (c. 40)

For section 110 (jurisdiction of magistrates' courts) substitute—
	"110 JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS IN NORTHERN IRELAND
	(1) In Northern Ireland, a friendly society or an officer of a friendly society may be prosecuted for a summary offence under this Act before a magistrates' court acting for the county court division in which the registered office of the society is situated.
	(2) Subsection (1) is without prejudice to the provisions of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 as to the jurisdiction of a magistrates' court."" Page 104, line 16, at end insert—

"Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22)

In—
	(a) section 51(3)(b)(i) (meaning of "appropriately proved"), and
	(b) section 55(2)(a)(ii) (meaning of "appropriately proved"),
	for "rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"." Page 104, line 20, at end insert—

"Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (c. 37)

In section 55(7) (power to make rules about orders under section 55), for "Crown Court Rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"." Page 105, line 15, at end insert—

"Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (c. 25)

(1) Amend section 19 (rules of court) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), for the words from the beginning to "sections" substitute "The power to make Criminal Procedure Rules".
	(3) In subsection (3), for "Rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules made".
	In section 20(3) (rules as to disclosure), for the words from "Without" to "that section" substitute "The power to make Criminal Procedure Rules".
	In section 33 (Crown Court Rules)—
	(a) in subsections (1) and (2), for "Crown Court Rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules", and
	(b) for the section heading, substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules".
	In paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 (rules about statements and depositions), for the words from "Without prejudice" to "includes power to" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules may".
	In paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 4 (modification of section 20(3) in relation to Northern Ireland), for "that section" substitute "Rules"." Page 105, line 19, at end insert—
	"In each of the following provisions, for "rules of court" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"—
	(a) section 20(6) (applications about special measures directions);
	(b) section 27(4)(b) (video recorded evidence in chief);
	(c) section 28(2) and (4) (video recorded cross-examination or re-examination);
	(d) section 29(3) and (5) (examination of witness through intermediary);
	(e) section 37(5) (applications about directions under section 36);
	(f) section 38(6) and (7) (defence representation for purposes of cross-examination);
	(g) section 43(3) (procedure on applications under section 41);
	(h) section 65(1) (power to make rules for purposes of Act)." Page 105, line 20, at end insert—
	"In section 44(11) (restrictions on reporting of offences), for "rules of court" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules in England and Wales, or rules of court in Northern Ireland".
	Omit section 65(2) (meaning of "rules of court")." Page 105, line 29, at end insert—
	"(1) Amend Schedule 5 (terrorist investigations: information) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 10(2), for "Crown Court Rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules".
	(3) In paragraph 18, after paragraph (d) insert—
	"(dd) the reference in paragraph 10(2) to "Criminal Procedure Rules" shall be taken as a reference to Crown Court Rules,".
	(1) Amend paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 (procedure on application for provision of financial information) as follows.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for "Crown Court Rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules".
	(3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
	"(3) Crown Court Rules may make provision about the procedure for an application under paragraph 1."" Page 106, line 28, leave out "for" substitute "designated officer for"" and insert "for the petty sessions" substitute "designated officer for the local justice""
	Page 106, line 30, leave out "executive" substitute "designated officer"" and insert "executive for a petty sessions" substitute "designated officer for a local justice""
	Page 107, line 1, at end insert—
	"In—
	(a) section 7(3) (form of consent to surrender), and
	(b) section 13(3) (form of waiver of right to review),
	for "rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules"." Page 107, line 3, at end insert—
	"In paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 5 (orders under Part 1), after "by" insert "Criminal Procedure Rules or, in Northern Ireland,".

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c. 29)

In—
	(a) section 24(1)(b) (application to discharge confiscation order: inadequacy of available amount), and
	(b) section 25(1)(b) (application to discharge confiscation order: small amount outstanding),
	for "a justices' chief executive" substitute "the designated officer for a magistrates' court".
	In section 54(6) and (7) (payments by enforcement receivers), for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer".
	(1) Amend section 55 (sums received by justices' chief executive) as follows.
	(2) For "justices' chief executive", in each place (including the section heading) substitute "designated officer".
	(3) In subsection (2), for "chief executive's" substitute "designated officer's".
	(4) In subsection (6), for "section 60 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (c. 25)" substitute "section 33 of the Courts Act 2003".
	In section 67(5) (payment of seized money), for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer".
	In section 91 (Crown Court Rules) for "Crown Court Rules or (as the case may be) Criminal Appeal Rules" substitute "Criminal Procedure Rules".

Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38)

In section 13(2) (requirement to provide information relating to adoption), for "justices' chief executive" substitute "designated officer".
	In section 55(2) (interpretation of section 55(1)), for "petty sessions" substitute "local justice".
	(1) Amend section 141 (rules of procedure) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), for "The Lord Chancellor may make rules" substitute "Family Procedure Rules may make provision".
	(3) Omit subsection (2).
	In section 144(1) (interpretation), for the definition of "rules" substitute—
	""rules" means Family Procedure Rules made by virtue of section 141(1),"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 7 [Repeals]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 262 to 303:
	Page 107, line 12, after "4," insert ""under the hand and seal" and"
	Page 107, line 19, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Railway Regulation Act 1842 (c. 55) In section 17, ", in the like discretion of such justice, shall" and the words from "and every such penalty" to the end. 
			 Defence Act 1842 (c. 94) In section 24, "of the county, riding, city, or place". 
			 Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (c. 16) In section 3, the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together in petty sessions". 
			 Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (c. 18) In section 3, the words from "The word "justices"" to "acting together". 
			 Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (c. 20) In section 3, the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:". 
			  In section 46, "in petty sessions". 
			  In section 59, ", and assembled in petty sessions,". 
			 Markets and Fairs Clauses Act 1847 (c. 14) In section 3, the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:". 
			 Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 (c. 27) In section 3, the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:". 
			 Towns Improvement Clauses Act 1847 (c. 34) In section 3, the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:". 
			 Cemeteries Clauses Act 1847 (c. 65) In section 3, the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:". 
			 Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (c. 89) In section 3, the words from "The word "justice"" to "acting together:". 
			 Indictable Offences Act 1848 (c. 42) In section 13, "any county, riding, division, liberty, city, borough, or place in" (in both places). 
			 Defence Act 1860 (c. 112) In section 47, the words from "The word "justices"" to "acting together:". 
			 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100) In section 44, "under their hands". 
			  In section 65, "under his hand and seal". 
			 Poaching Prevention Act 1862 (c. 114) In section 1, the words from "; and the words "justice" and "justices"" onwards. 
			  In section 2, "England and". 
			  In section 3, "in England in the same manner as penalties under the Game Act 1831 and". 
			 Dockyard Ports Regulation Act 1865 (c. 125) In section 2, the words from "The term "justice"" to "arises:". 
			 Newspapers, Printers, and Reading Rooms Repeal Act 1869 (c. 24) In Schedule 2, in section 34 of the Unlawful Societies Act 1799, "or sued" and ", or such action shall be brought", and sections 35 and 36 of the 1799 Act. 
			 Explosive Substances Act 1883 (c. 3) In section 6(1), "for the county, borough, or place in which the crime was committed or is suspected to have been committed," and "sit at a petty sessional or occasional court-house, or police station in the said county, borough or place, and"." 
		
	
	Page 107, line 26, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Criminal Justice Act 1925 (c. 86) In section 33(4), ", except in so far as such provision may be made by rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980"." 
		
	
	Page 107, line 28, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Public Offices (Site) Act 1947 (c. 45) Section 7. 
			 National Assistance Act 1948 (c. 29) Section 65(c)." 
		
	
	Page 107, line 36, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Maintenance Orders Act 1950 (c. 37) Section 25(1). 
			  In section 28(1), in the definition of "prescribed", "England or", "by rules made under section fifteen of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, or" and "as the case may be,"." 
		
	
	Page 107, line 41, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Maintenance Orders Act 1958 (c. 39) In section 21(1), the definition of "rules of court". 
			 Manoeuvres Act 1958 (7 & 8 Eliz. 2 c. 7) In section 3, in subsection (1) "sitting in petty sessions in the petty sessions area within which that highway or part of a highway is situated" and in subsection (2) "being a highway or part within the jurisdiction of those justices". 
			 Obscene Publications Act 1959 (c. 66) In section 3(1), "in the petty sessions area for which he acts," and "in that area". 
			 Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960 (c. 36) In section 3(2), the words from "and in section one" onwards." 
		
	
	Page 108, line 8, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Administration of Justice Act 1960 (c. 65) In section 2(3), "Except in a case involving sentence of death,". 
			  Section 3." 
		
	
	Page 108, line 12, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Administration of Justice Act 1964 (c. 42) In section 26, "commissions of the peace,". 
			 Science and Technology Act 1965 (c. 4) In Schedule 2, the entry relating to section 6 of the Geological Survey Act 1845. 
			 Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (c. 56) Section 1(5)." 
		
	
	Page 108, line 18, column 2, at beginning insert—
	"In section 31A(2), at the end of paragraph (b) "and"."
	Page 108, line 20, column 2, at beginning insert—
	
		
			   "In section 36(1), at the end of paragraph (f) "and". 
			  In section 36A(1), at the end of paragraph (a) "and"." 
		
	
	Page 108, line 26, leave out "paragraph" and insert "paragraphs 17 and"
	Page 108, line 26, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (c. 32) In section 25(1), the definition of "rules of court" and "and" before it. 
			 Armed Forces Act 1971 (c. 33) In Schedule 2, paragraph 1(8)." 
		
	
	Page 108, line 29, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) In Schedule 3, in paragraph 6(3) "the Crown Court or" and "commission area or" and in paragraph 8(1) "area or"." 
		
	
	Page 108, line 30, column 2, at beginning insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In section 21(1), "in England and Wales or", "by rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 or", and "as the case may be,"." 
		
	
	Page 108, line 32, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Civil Evidence Act 1972 (c. 30) Section 2(8). 
			 Administration of Justice Act 1973 (c. 15) In section 5, "Paragraph 7 of". 
			  In Schedule 1, paragraphs 7 to 7B and 10(1)." 
		
	
	Page 108, line 42, column 2, at beginning insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In section 2, the definitions of "Crown Court rules", "magistrates' courts rules" and "Supreme Court rules"." 
		
	
	Page 109, line 5, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Administration of Justice Act 1977 (c. 38) Section 22." 
		
	
	Page 109, line 6, column 2, at beginning insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In section 88(1), the definition of "rules"." 
		
	
	Page 109, line 6, after "2" insert ", 6 "
	Page 109, line 13, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In Schedule 1, in paragraph 1(2) "Except in a case involving sentence of death," and paragraph 2." 
		
	
	Page 109, line 15, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) In section 4(1), "in the petty sessions area for which he acts"." 
		
	
	Page 109, line 18, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In section 60(4) "the clerk of"." 
		
	
	Page 109, line 38, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "Section 141." 
		
	
	Page 109, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In section 144, in subsection (2) "the President of the Family Division of the High Court, the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate)" and subsection (5)." 
		
	
	Page 109, leave out line 41 and insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In section 145, in subsection (1) paragraphs (aa), (f) and (i) and subsection (4)." 
		
	
	Page 109, line 44, leave out "definition of "petty-sessional court-house"" and insert "definitions of "petty-sessional court-house", "the register" and "the rules""
	Page 109, line 47, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In Schedule 7, paragraphs 5, 8, 101(a), 106, 107, 113, 131 and 151. 
			 Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47) Section 48 and Schedule 3." 
		
	
	Page 109, line 48, leave out "18(1)(a)" and insert "18(1)"
	Page 109, line 50, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "Section 76(4)." 
		
	
	Page 110, line 10, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In Schedule 5, paragraph 1 of the entry relating to the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, the entry relating to the Criminal Justice Act 1948, and paragraph 2 of the entry relating to the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975." 
		
	
	Page 110, line 16, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In Schedule 2, paragraph 43." 
		
	
	Page 110, line 17, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In Schedule 1, paragraph 13(b)." 
		
	
	Page 110, line 28, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23) Section 20(5)." 
		
	
	Page 111, line 2, column 2, at beginning insert—
	
		
			   "Section 7(10)(c) and the word "and" immediately preceding it. 
			  Section 18(4)." 
		
	
	Page 111, line 7, column 2, at beginning insert—
	
		
			  
			  "Section 97(7)(a)." 
		
	
	Page 111, line 29, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991 (c. 17) In Schedule 2, paragraph 11(2)." 
		
	
	Page 111, line 35, leave out "paragraph 41(2)(a)" and insert "in paragraph 41(2), paragraphs (a) and (e)"
	Page 111, line 37, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Friendly Societies Act 1992 (c. 40) In Schedule 16, paragraph 44." 
		
	
	Page 111, line 48, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In Schedule 6, paragraph 14(5) and (7)." 
		
	
	Page 112, line 2, after "paragraphs" insert "29, 30"
	Page 112, line 34, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In Schedule 10, paragraphs 1 to 5, 6, 7, 9 to 12, 14 to 16, 18 to 20, 21(a), 30(4)(b), 32, 35 36, 39, and 47 to 53. 
			  In Schedule 11, paragraphs 3, 6(a), 12, 18, 28, 29, 30, 32, 36(3) and (4)(a), and 43 to 50." 
		
	
	Page 112, line 35, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "In Schedule 13, paragraphs 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13(2), 14, 15, 25 to 31, 59(2), (3)(a) and (4), 60, 65, 66, 68, 69, 72, 73(4), 74, 77, 78, 81, 82, 89 to 93, 96 to 112, 114 to 118, 122(2), 126, 127, 129 to 131, 135 to 138, 147 to 149, 150(3), 153(a), 154 to 156, 159 to 162, 165, 167 to 169 and 171." 
		
	
	Page 112, line 36, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			  "Section 65(2)." 
		
	
	Page 113, line 17, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38) Section 141(2). 
			  In Schedule 3, paragraph 44. 
			 Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40) Section 265." 
		
	
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 100 [Commencement]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 304:
	Page 53, line 21, after "37," insert "(Award of costs in appeals under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002),"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 101 [Extent]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 305:
	Page 53, line 27, leave out "or 96" and insert "96, (Extension of time for criminal appeals to House of Lords: Northern Ireland), (Fees: Northern Ireland) or 99"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Arab Republic of Egypt) Order 2003

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I wish to speak to the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. These are two European Union external agreements, one between the EU and Chile and the other between the EU and Egypt. With your Lordships' agreement, I intend to discuss the orders together because so much of the ground covered in both agreements is of a similar nature. Similarly, with your Lordships' agreement, I also intend to take questions on the two agreements together.
	I will start with the agreement in relation to Egypt. The importance to the UK and the EU of stability in the Middle East has rarely been more apparent or acute. Today, we have an opportunity to take an important step in promoting that stability.
	The association agreement between the EU and Egypt aims to promote economic and social development in Egypt, and in the region. It creates a partnership, underpinned by an ongoing, wide-ranging dialogue and cemented through increased trade liberalisation. It envisages co-operation on a spectrum of issues of mutual concern, ranging from tourism to terrorism and from immigration to investment.
	The agreement supports UK interests in a variety of ways. First, and most broadly, it will encourage economic and political reform in the Arab world's most populous nation, providing a key plank in the United Kingdom's policy to promote reform across the Arab world. It creates opportunities for increased UK exports through the progressive reduction of Egyptian tariffs on EU industrial products and through increased agricultural liberalisation. That dovetails with the wider UK aim of promoting global trade liberalisation and economic integration.
	Equally importantly, the agreement gives the UK new means for promoting human rights in Egypt—through regular dialogue and, ultimately, the sanction of suspending the agreement due to human rights' violations.
	The agreement forms part of a broader relationship between the EU and 12 Mediterranean countries, known as the Euro-Med Partnership. This new chapter in EU-Mediterranean relations was opened at Barcelona in 1995 and continues to grow and develop. Its overarching goal is to ensure peace, stability and security in the Mediterranean region. To this end, it aims to create a Euro-Med free trade area by 2010. Combining an enlarged EU of 25 countries with our Mediterranean partners will create one of the world's largest trading blocs.
	Association agreements are the main instrument for achieving that target. Agreements that are similar to the one before us have already been signed with Tunisia, Israel, Morocco, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Algeria and Lebanon. The first four of those have been ratified and are in force—noble Lords may recall debates on them. An agreement with Syria is currently being negotiated.
	Egypt shares the UK and EU aims of promoting regional stability and prosperity through dialogue, co-operation and trade. Its association agreement was signed on 25th June 2001, but until the agreement has been ratified by all parties, Egypt will not enjoy its benefits. It will not enjoy the benefit of increased agricultural liberalisation, increased EU investment or wide-ranging co-operation; nor will it be able to capitalise on the fresh impetus those provisions will bring to its economic reforms.
	To date, the European Communities and four EU member states—France, Germany, Sweden and Ireland—have ratified the agreement. A further three member states will ratify within a matter of weeks. More importantly, Egypt itself ratified the agreement last month. It is an important agreement, supporting key long-term UK, EU and Egyptian objectives. The UK should ratify the agreement as soon as possible. I commend the order to the House.
	I turn now with your Lordships' agreement to the EU-Chile association agreement, which takes previous agreements negotiated in the 1990s to a new level. It shows we can bring together the EU and Chile to agree an updated set of commitments, giving us the opportunity to find ways that our relationship can deliver more benefits for all of us. The agreement represents the next step in our continuing attempts to strengthen the EU's relations with Latin America. It follows the lead of Mexico in 2000 and precedes a similar agreement currently nearing completion with Mercosur. We hope that the Andean community and Central America will follow suit after the Doha WTO round.
	Chile is one of the most stable emerging markets in the world and that is due, in no small part, to its decision to participate fully in world trade. It is a strong commitment to this belief in free trade which allows the EU and Chile to come together to design and implement an agreement that gives the most benefit to both parties.
	There are other dimensions to the relationship too. Through mutual co-operation, the agreement will build and strengthen institutions and help reinforce and support democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance. We must support and encourage that in a maturing democracy such as Chile. The EU can share its experience and expertise in a wide number of areas—in the technical, trade, economic and social spheres—and we can help to build social cohesion and fight poverty, marginalisation and exclusion.
	Most of the EU-Chile association agreement deals with a new set of trading arrangements. As a part of the EU's ongoing programme of negotiating bilateral free trade agreements, the agreement shows us what can be done when two parties set out to achieve an ambitious result for mutual benefit. The agreement is one of the most liberal of all the EU's trade agreements and provides the model from which other trade agreements follow. It fully liberalises more than 97 per cent of all goods traded between the EU and Chile over the next 10 years, easily surpassing the level needed for WTO compatibility. Specifically, it delivers tariff-free access for all industrial goods and trade in services. Those are measures from which UK exporters stand to benefit greatly. The gains from dismantling trade barriers will continue to accrue to firms year after year, giving a substantial boost to growth and prosperity. Those benefits have already come on stream, with both sides agreeing that they should start on 1st February 2003.
	On top of tariff reductions, the agreement establishes for the first time preliminary rules governing investment, competition and government procurement, in line with our objectives in the WTO round. We have also agreed a wines and spirits agreement, which will bring in more Chilean wine at cheaper prices, and allow us to export even bigger quantities of our spirits, particularly Scotch whisky and vodka.
	Turning to the political elements of the agreement, we can see the benefits of an ongoing open dialogue on world events. The agreement commits the EU and Chile to regular meetings at various levels, including heads of government and ministerial level. Those meetings give us a chance to exchange views on a wide range of matters and to find areas of mutual agreement where we might work together to achieve a common aim. Areas specified in the agreement include fighting terrorism, international crime and the trafficking of illegal drugs. Indeed, that dialogue has already begun. By way of the UK's commitment to the process, my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, Bill Rammell, participated in the inaugural association council established under the agreement in Athens earlier this year.
	Further to this political dialogue, the agreement commits the EU to supporting Chile in other ways. Technical assistance and co-operation is something that the EU member states do well. Chilean policy makers, business community and civil society, can learn much from us, and likewise us from them. The agreement pushes our relationship to new heights and helps to cement relationships at all levels.
	As a result of the Order in Council discussed today, the UK will be among the first member states to ratify the agreement. This sends a strong and clear signal of the UK's close relationship with Chile and the importance we attach to it. For this reason, I ask your Lordships to support the important objectives by approving the principles behind the agreement. I commend that order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister referred briefly to the human rights implications of the two agreements. I want to concentrate on those, if I may, and not to speak in general about the liberalisation of trade, of which we of course strongly approve. We hope that that leads to greater trade between our country and the two that are mentioned in the agreements.
	In respect of human rights, there is a standard clause in the association agreement which has always been used up until now. It is that in the agreement with Egypt:
	"Relations between the Parties, as well as the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect of democratic rights and fundamental human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement".
	The Minister said that that clause enables us, in the event of serious default, to annul the association agreement, but she did not say what steps would be taken in the period leading up to any such drastic decision. Any such decision by the European Union to cancel the agreement would surely not come out of the blue and without some previous very careful consideration of the violations of human rights that were said to have occurred in Egypt. There is no mechanism in the agreement for doing that.
	We believe that the EU should consider, through some kind of mechanism, the fact that in Egypt, for example, there has been a state of emergency since 1981 when President Sadat was murdered, and the fact that, under a decree by President Mubarak in October 1992, civilians can be tried by military courts, against which there is no right of appeal. The state of emergency comes up for renewal every three years. As it happens, I understand that the next renewal is due in June. Have we made any representations to Egypt to the effect that it is inappropriate to continue those arrangements once the association agreement and its commitments have entered into force?
	The ruling National Democratic Party in Egypt has a tight grip on the media and control over other political parties, NGOs, the unions and the large public sector, so that the people have no right in practice to change their government. In the 2000 elections to the People's Assembly, the opposition made small gains despite widespread arrests of activists, particularly those of the Muslim Brotherhood, which advocates the creation of an Islamic state by peaceful, democratic means. The EU and member states must make up their minds about whether the respect for democratic rights in the association agreements extends to full participation by Islamist political parties in the electoral process and in public debate on the policies of their governments. If so, as I would expect, how are they going to use the association agreements to further that principle?
	If the international community is incapable of making a distinction between those who use the ballot box to further what they see as Islamic principles of government, and others who choose the path of violence for those purposes, the effect will be to cause some Islamists to think that, as an Irishman once put it, violence is the only way of securing a hearing for moderation. In Algeria—I do not need to remind noble Lords of this—the army-backed coup of 1991 inaugurated more than a decade of bloodshed and reciprocal terrorism between the state and the Islamists. That process was tolerated by Europe, but we now must face the same question across the whole region: do the various brands of Islamism constitute ideologies that compete for peoples' allegiance within a framework of democracy, or are some of them using the levers of democracy to gain power and put an end to the freedom of their people to exercise choice? If it is the latter, should the people be trusted with the preservation of their own freedom or, as in the case of Egypt, are governments justified in imposing certain limitations on human rights to prevent the loss of most of them, notwithstanding the commitments that they enter into in agreements of this sort?
	We should discuss these questions. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, there is, in Article 3 of the agreement, provision for a political dialogue, albeit only at ministerial and senior official level. In our opinion, there should be a much wider review mechanism, including annual reports to the Egyptian parliament and the European Parliament on the performance of the obligations under Article 2, based on material that is already in the public domain, such as the US State Department country reports on human rights practices and reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Federation Internationale des Droits de l'Homme. Wherever possible, that should be supplemented by reciprocal visits, such as those undertaken by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Ahmed, both of whom have visited Egypt in recent years.
	In the case of Chile, in addition to respect for democratic principles and human rights, the rule of law is said to underpin the policies of the parties. It would be useful if the Minister could explain why that is not in all the association agreements. Chile is a democratic country and held free and fair elections for the presidency in 2000 and the congress in December 2001. However, with regard to the rule of law, there are still military courts which deal with crimes by military personnel against civilians, and military tribunals also have the power to deal with ordinary offences, such as terrorism, sedition and defamation of military personnel by civilians. The criminal law still prohibits the insulting of state institutions.
	There are also problems concerning the human rights violations that occurred during the period of military government under Pinochet. Pinochet's immunity was lifted, but he was found unfit to stand trial. We hope that wherever there is enough evidence against leading members of the former regime and against military personnel who committed acts of torture, there will be prosecutions. It would be useful if, in the EU-Chile dialogue, the cases of victims who are EU nationals could be pursued. Such cases include British citizens. I refer, for example, to Dr Sheila Cassidy, who spoke at the first meeting of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group in 1976—I remember chairing it—and Father Michael Woodward, in whose torture and murder Foreign Office Ministers always take a close interest.
	Amnesty International says that although the amnesty for torturers and murderers provided by decree law 2.191 of 1978 has been partially suspended as a result of decisions by the supreme court, it is still contrary to international law and should be repealed altogether. That opinion has been echoed by the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights and other authoritative international bodies.
	The argument that crimes against humanity, such as extra-juridical execution, disappearances and torture—which took place during the Pinochet regime—cannot be subject to any statute of limitations and that the Chilean Government have an obligation to investigate those crimes and punish the offenders, whatever the time that has elapsed since they were committed, has some force. Unlike the case of Egypt, there are institutional mechanisms within the framework of the association council, described in Part II of the agreement, for political dialogue, but nothing is said there about how the parliaments of the two states can be involved, still less the people of Chile and Britain.
	I hope that those questions can be considered, not necessarily this evening but at some time before we get down to work on implementing the two association agreements so that we can see how the Government intend to monitor and watch them over the years and take steps that are short of the drastic steps mentioned by the noble Baroness in cases in which those violations continue to occur.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I believe that I am right in saying that we are taking these orders before another place. In a sense, we are pace setting—as in many other areas—on these issues.
	The time that we have allotted for the orders is short, and we are dealing with them in a sensible and expeditious way, but I note in passing that the agreements are colossal. The agreement for Egypt contains 92 articles and has a mass of annexes and protocols, and the association agreement for Chile has 206 articles and is accompanied by five volumes, each of which has about 700 or 800 pages. So vast is the documentation that when it came to my office it was marked with a label that said, "Heavy package: lift with caution: price £176". We can touch on only the edges of these matters and deal with the most general points. No human mind—certainly no legislature—could grasp all of the detail. In an earlier debate today, noble Lords were worried about taking 135 amendments to a Bill en bloc and maintained that they were not adequately explained. That applies just as much to taking an order en bloc that has attached to it five volumes—each of which has 800 pages—206 articles and heaven knows how many annexes and protocols.
	Why do we need to put ourselves through this process at all? After all, these are Community documents and the Explanatory Memorandum states that, under Community law, they can be directly effective in the United Kingdom so long as they are sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional. The implication of the Explanatory Memorandum is that to get these matters right in our own courts and to enable rights and obligations arising from the agreement to be given effect in the United Kingdom, we must also give it our approval. Other reasons are given for dealing with the matter, but it is admitted that in legal, political and technical terms these orders are vastly complex and cover a huge range of issues.
	The order establishing agreement between the European Communities and the Arab Republic of Egypt is, as the Minister made clear, part of the EU's Mediterranean policy. It is a most ambitious and worthwhile policy and it concentrates on expanding the free-trade area throughout the Mediterranean basin. I support that; it has our full approval.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised a different dimension and I want slightly to part company with him. One must ask to what extent the trade agreements can sustain all the political problems which arise in the modern world where the society of modern states is imposing standards on sovereign nations and requiring patterns of behaviour which I welcome and which are far more rigorous. One cannot separate politics and trade, but we must ask how much we must seek to use such instruments and association agreements for pursuing the utterly worthwhile and noble ends that the noble Lord outlined. It is a matter of opinion, but I question whether, if one builds too much politics into trade, one will get into the kind of trouble the World Trade Organisation got into, particularly at the famous Seattle gathering where there was a total breakdown. When looking at such complex issues and at the number one priority in each of them—in both agreements it is for a regular political dialogue—I cannot help having some degree of agreement with my noble friend Lord Hurd when he said in an interesting speech last week:
	"I would rather we talked less about the EU's global pretentions and concentrated on making a success of enterprises closer to hand".
	There is a lesson to be kept in mind about weaving too many of our political ambitions, and our ambitions for greater stability and a better world order, into the more humdrum but vitally important matter of expanding our trade and reducing barriers, quotas, tariff and non-tariff obstructions to the free movement of goods and services.
	I want to make a few brief comments on each of the orders. As the Minister reminded us, Egypt is the most populous Arab nation. Its population has been growing at a staggering rate. When I first visited Cairo 30 or 40 years ago, the population was 15 million, which seemed incredible. I am told that it is now probably nearer 30 million—and that is one city inside Egypt. We are looking at a nation of a colossal population which is rapidly growing and raising colossal problems and challenges for development and political organisation, at which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, hinted.
	It is utterly in our interest that this huge Arab nation should be stable; should be more prosperous; should have faster economic growth; and should be an effective player not only in the Middle Eastern arena but in the world community. It is certainly of a size to do so and in history it has done so. Egypt is a major beneficiary of EU aid and I understand that there are current commitments from the EU of about 850 million euros and many programmes in addition.
	I would like to know—it may be impossible in the time we have today—a little more about how that interacts with UK bilateral aid and direct links with Egypt; that is, UK/Egyptian affairs and UK/Egyptian aid and technical assistance. It is a bit of a hobbyhorse of mine to know how the whole EU aid programme in all its aspects interrelates with those parts of aid activities that remain with the nation states. I confess that I am in a constant state of unhappiness about the linkages between the EU programmes and the national programmes. I share a bias, which was shared by the outgoing Secretary of State for International Development, that the EU programmes leave a very great deal to be desired and that we rue the day when so much authority was handed from nation states, with their highly efficient programmes, to the EU organisations. We were in favour of more co-ordination but creating a gigantic fifth wheel to the pattern of aid programmes in Europe may not have been such a marvellous idea as many people argued at the time.
	I would also like to know how the measure sits alongside the large volume of United States aid which I understand goes to Egypt. It is important to make judgments when we are trying to work out positive moves to assist the development of poorer countries around the edges of the Union, or in the Mediterranean area, and assess how our efforts co-ordinate with or contradict the efforts of the other major aid donors and trade partners of, in this case, Egypt. How do such issues fit in? It would be useful at some time—perhaps not today—to have a clearer picture.
	Nor is it totally clear why Egypt is so poor. Why has its rate of growth been so inadequate, despite the colossal aid it has received over the years? I suspect that we should be looking at different criteria for stimulating growth and development; perhaps at ideas such as those of Hernandez de Soto, who says that the real reason for a vast city such as Cairo, teaming with enterprise and skill, still being poor lies in the total lack of property rights and not in lack of aid or anything else. If one can somehow raise the standards of good governance that underlie property rights, particularly the rule of law, one will begin to see Egypt again prosper as a mighty nation. It could well do so, but is not at the moment. That is one of the greatest human rights and our efforts should be enabling and encouraging that. I hope we can bear that thought in mind.
	I turn briefly to the Chilean agreement. It is a vast series of agreements and a huge document. It begins once again with the emphasis on a political dialogue. It makes one feel a little uneasy about who is held to account for implementing all of the agreement. I suppose we have an adequate opportunity at national level. I suppose that the European Parliament does its job, but I have no idea because I do not have the time or resources to catch up with the full combing through of all the texts. I ruminate—there will be debates to come on this—that if the convention draft constitution proposals go forward and give the EU as a legal entity even more power to make agreements and settle issues without involving the national parliaments, that will be an even more serious challenge to accountability and to trying to catch up with what is going wrong.
	Frankly, the explanatory memorandum for the Chilean agreement does not tell us much, so one has to turn to the press release which goes with the signing of the agreement last November in Brussels. On that occasion the EuroChile prize was awarded to Mr Soledad Alvear, the senior Chilean; Mr Christopher Patten, commissioner, and Mr Pascal Lamy, also a commissioner. On that occasion Mr Lamy said that it was a model of 21st century relations. They did not mention what I believe the noble Baroness rightly mentioned and what all of us have in mind, which is the excellent wine from Chile and the really remarkable story of lifting Chilean wine exports into the highest level of world quality in a matter of a few decades.
	The agreement also mentions that we shall be able to talk about various developments, both political and other kinds, of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and that there will be consultation with the EU Parliaments on the Euro-Chilean dialogue. I would love to know how those consultations will go forward, whether they add up to genuine discussion or whether it is just a matter between the European Parliament and various Chilean bodies.
	Does the order cover European Union aid to Chile? From reading the documentation I think not but I may be wrong about that. Overall, we take the matter on trust rather as your Lordships were taking on trust earlier debates and propositions from Governments because we cannot absorb all the detail. But these are two nations which we want to prosper which have made great strides. After a stormy political period, Chile has done particularly brilliantly in many areas in very recent years. Egypt has yet to prosper in the way I believe it should and could do in which open societies, free trade and good governance really prevail and allow the Egyptian people to play their full part in world politics.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, has correctly identified the lack of solid property rights as a brake on Egypt's development. It may be also that the United States aid to Egypt has been less effective because it has been largely military in character. When the Minister replies on Chile I hope that she will be able to say whether she can foresee similar trade improvements being extended to Argentina? If that could be done in the fairly short or medium term it might help Argentina to recover somewhat more rapidly from its recent serious economic problems and that in turn might help Mercosur, the South American cone of economic co-operation to become more of a reality than it is at present.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, three of your Lordships have raised quite a lot of questions, which I shall do my best to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is right in saying that the agreements are lengthy. Indeed, they took quite some time to negotiate. However, I am sorry to say that I was staggered to learn that the cost of a copy of the Chilean agreement to the general public is £176. I think that that is a very heavy price.
	However lengthy and long these negotiations were, I do not think any of your Lordships believe that they are fundamentally contentious agreements, although the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised some particular questions about human rights. As I said in my opening remarks, the agreements on which we have to focus are principally about trade. None of us operates on trade without reference to what is happening in international relationships. In human rights terms, we expect certain standards of those with whom we conclude these kinds of agreements.
	Perhaps I may say to your Lordships that—and this touches to a certain extent upon what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said—in the EU we are now concentrating our trade negotiations through the WTO. Commissioner Lamee has said that EU resources should be put behind trying to liberalise trade internationally through the WTO and particularly in building up for the discussions we shall be having in Cancun in Mexico in September.
	I have a certain sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about bilateral agreements and their importance. I think that to set bilateral agreements entirely on one side in the European Union would be a mistake. I hope that in the longer term that is not a path down which the European Union is trying to tempt us to go, although I can see the sense in concentrating our resources in the way that we are at the moment.
	I turn first to Egypt. It already enjoys duty and quota-free access to the EU for its industrial products under the 1977 co-operation agreement. However, by liberalising trade in agricultural products and increasing EU/Egyptian co-operation in economic areas the agreement will promote Egyptian exports into the EU. The noble Lord raised an important question about what he perceived to be a lack of prosperity on Egypt's part. It is important to see that this is opening up those markets for Egypt in a way that we hope will consolidate its position.
	Of course the agreement will cover 90 per cent of EU/Egyptian trade. The United Kingdom supported better and faster market access for EU exports. Perhaps it is disappointing that more was not achieved. I am bound to say to your Lordships that in acknowledging that, I hope that we will also acknowledge the positive side of the agreement.
	I turn to the very interesting point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as to the human rights issues around the Egyptian agreement. It is important that the articles on political dialogue provide for regular exchanges on subjects of common interest, such as peace, democracy and regional development. Human rights will be a part of that dialogue, as under the association agreements with other countries in the region. The noble Lord will be familiar with those agreements.
	In addition, the European Union can take what are described as "appropriate measures"—including of course, as I mentioned, the suspending provisions in the agreement—if it considers that Egypt is failing to meet its obligations. The noble Lord asked quite rightly: how is that done? Monitoring through the heads of mission will continue. That will trigger, if necessary, an ability to raise the matter at association council and committee. There will be a continuing dialogue after ratification.
	We always have very senior ambassadorial representation in Cairo. I was there recently. We have an exceptionally good mission in terms of the numbers of British diplomats. So we are able to monitor the situation and to bring matters to the attention of our colleagues should that be necessary.
	The monitoring of human rights concerns by Parliament is an important point, not just for Parliament in this country but for parliaments in other European Union countries. But of course the competence, as the noble Lord will know, rests at European Council level. The Council will consider the views of national parliaments and, quite rightly, the views of the European Parliament itself.
	As I understand the situation, either party can take appropriate measures if it considers that the other side is failing to fulfil its complete obligations under the agreement, including in respect of the principles of fundamental human rights. Therefore, I believe that there are many mechanisms which can be triggered should we feel that Egypt is not living up to its obligations.
	I turn to the interesting questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, as to aid. He was particularly worried about what he saw as the failings of European Union aid towards Egypt. It is a UK priority to support reforms aimed at improving the effectiveness and management of European Union aid, including the MEDA programme which provides aid to Egypt. We support the European Commission in taking forward this reform agenda and I think that we are reasonably happy with progress to date.
	I understand that the United States is also looking to pursue a free trade agreement with Egypt. However, that ambition is in its early days and no negotiations have actually started. Last week President Bush also spoke of a US/Middle East free-trade area. That is still very much a German idea, but none the less it is interesting that he is thinking in that way.
	I stress to noble Lords that the investment pattern between this country and Egypt is interesting. For example, the noble Lord may like to know that United Kingdom companies invest into Egypt six times the volume of money of United States companies. That is a quite remarkable figure. It is one in which this country can take a certain amount of pride, and perhaps one upon which others should reflect.
	I turn to issues concerning Chile. As I said, the agreement is part of strengthening bilateral relations in Latin America following the EU-Mexico agreement concluded in 1997. Both the EU and Chile view the agreement as strengthening political links and building on co-operation and assistance projects while giving our economies a real chance to benefit from trade liberalisation. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, emphasising issues concerning Chilean wine and our whisky are most important. Those are huge products for both economies and it is good to see progress in that respect.
	I turn again to the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about human rights. Let us consider the question of the rule of law. The agreement reiterates our commitment to strengthening the rule of law in Chile, which is an integral part of the political and co-operation parts of the agreement. Since the earlier framework agreements concluded in 1991 and 1996, that has been our aim.
	The noble Lord is concerned about the working of the military courts. We support the correct use of judicial procedures, according to the nature of the case in question. With regard to the use of military courts, we would use the agreement to influence the Government of Chile to follow what we believe to be the correct internationally recognised procedures. Of course, that means that civilians should be tried in civilian courts.
	I turn to the issue of peace law 2.191. We have always been concerned that human rights abuses committed during the military dictatorship are thoroughly investigated by the Chilean authorities, and that those found responsible are brought to justice. We support the repeal of the 1978 amnesty law. I am of course aware of the abuses relating to Father Michael Woodward and William Beausire. We formally registered with the Chilean Government our continuing interest in the cases of both those individuals. As I said, we have always been concerned that human rights abuses be properly investigated and President Lagos has said that his government is committed to ensuring that the courts have the necessary independence to advance the process of human rights cases. So we have received those assurances from the Chilean President.
	Article 9 of the agreement provides scope for parliamentary co-operation between the Chilean Congress and the European Parliament. However, no article covers co-operation between national parliaments. That is for the consideration of national parliaments individually, rather than as part of the agreement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked whether the Chilean agreement was to be a precursor for one with Argentina or, indeed, Mercosur. As I said, we are not entering into heavy bilateral negotiations with other countries at present, because the Council is concentrating on Cancun and the WTO. Negotiations on association agreements with Chile and Mercosur started together in 1999, but negotiating with a regional bloc is necessarily more complex than with a single country. As I know from discussions that I have had when in Chile and elsewhere—certainly in Brazil—frankly, it can be very difficult to press ahead with such negotiations. However, we hope to conclude the EU-Mercosur association agreement in line with the Rio Work Programme agreed in 2002. We hope to approach the final round of negotiations later this year.
	I hope that I have answered your Lordships questions to your satisfaction, and that you will now feel able to pass both of the orders.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Members States and the Republic of Chile) Order 2003

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean).

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eight o'clock.